1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD).No.3333 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 S.Natarajan ... Petitioner vs 1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nagercoil, Kannyakumari District. 2.The Special Officer, The Karavilai Primary Agricultural Co.Op.Bank Ltd. 1570, Karavilai, Anandanadarkudi Post, Kannyakumari District. 3.S.Murugan .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order issued by the second respondent in proceedings No.Nil dated 12.01.2011 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the third respondent from the service of the second respondent bank. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvanayagam For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.V.Rajasekaran Spl.Government Pleader O R D E R The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 12.01.2011, in and by which the third respondent was reinstated in service in the second respondent bank. 2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is stated here under: The second respondent is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank and the third respondent was working as a clerk in the said bank. Certain charges have been framed against him and an enquiry was conducted pertaining to the said charges. An order of dismissal from service was passed by the second respondent in its proceedings dated 06.05.1996. The third respondent challenged the order of dismissal before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, who has allowed the same by its order dated 30.04.2003. The second respondent challenging the said order filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.1221 of 2007 and the same was dismissed on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 21.02.2007. Thereupon, the second respondent bank preferred an appeal in W.A.(MD)No.360 of 2007 and the same was also dismissed on 17.07.2008. A review application filed was also met with the same result. 3. In the mean while, the third respondent preferred a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.3115 of 2005 for reinstatement. The same was dismissed on 19.09.2007 on the ground that Writ Appeal filed by the second respondent was pending. Thereupon, the third respondent was found guilty in C.C.Nos.14, 15, 18 and 20 of 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate II, Tirunelveli. However, the third respondent was let off under the Probation of Offenders Act. Thereafter, the third respondent was reinstated in service by the second respondent. The said order is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that a person convicted by the criminal Court cannot be reinstated in service. According to the learned counsel, it is in violation of the bylaws of the second respondent bank. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition alleging that he is the member of the second respondent bank and he has got right and interest over the proper management of the bank. His case is that the third respondent was found guilty by the competent criminal Court and hence, he should not have been reinstated in service. The fact remains that departmental proceedings were initiated against the third respondent by framing charges against him. The main charge against him was that he has misappropriated the funds of the second respondent bank and altered the bank records. Though he was dismissed from service after conducting an enquiry by the second respondent, the order of dismissal was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, by an order dated 30.04.2003. The second respondent bank has challenged the same before this Court by filing a W.P.No.1221 of 2007 and the same was dismissed on 21.02.2007. The Writ Appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed. The second respondent's review application also was dismissed. Even the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Tirunelveli, by his judgment dated 06.09.2006 let off the third respondent under the Probation of Offenders Act. In such circumstances, the second respondent thought it fit to reinstate the petitioner in service. The said stand taken by the second respondent cannot be questioned by the petitioner, who alleges that he is a member of the second respondent bank. Even assuming the same can be questioned, the order of the second respondent cannot be questioned by the petitioner by filing the present Writ Petition. His remedy if at all lies in approaching the first respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. Taking such view, I am of the considered view that the present Writ Petition is liable to dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nagercoil, Kannyakumari District. 2.The Special Officer, The Karavilai Primary Agricultural Co.Op.Bank Ltd. 1570, Karavilai, Anandanadarkudi Post, Kannyakumari District. +1cc to Mr.D.Selvanayagam Advocate, Sr.No.7644 W.P.(MD).No.3333 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 22.03.2011 GM SMA/27.6.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/