IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.25950 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2009 T.Manoharan ... Petitioner Versus 1.Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies (MPD) Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. 2.The Special Officer/ Joint Registrar Thanjavur Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited Tiruvarur ( Po) & (Dt). 3.Enquiry Officer TCMF Ltd. Tiruvarur ( Po) & (Dt) Pin - 610 001. ... Respondents PRAYER: This Writ Petition has been filed under 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent relating to his order No.Rc.38915/2009 sa.pa.1 dated 10.11.2009, confirming the second respondent's reference Rc.No.438/2009 Estt.2 dated 31.05.2007 and the third respondent's notice dated 11.03.2009 and quash all the references/order and consequently direct the second respondent to pay the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner after his retirement form service. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondent - 1 : Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya Additional Government Pleader For Respondent – 2 : Mr.M.S.Palanisamy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Heard Mr.P.Anbarasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.S.Palanisamy taking notice for the second respondent. 2.The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the first respondent, in confirming the order of the Special Officer dated 31.05.2007 as well as the notice of enquiry dated 11.03.2009 issued by the third respondent. 3.By an order dated 31.05.2007, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo alleging several irregularities, when the petitioner was working as a Special Grade Assistant in the Cooperative Press belonging to the second respondent Society. The charges related to grant of jewel loan on the basis of spurious gold produced by persons, who sought jewel loans. The loss was worked out to Rs.6,33,650/-. 4.It is the case of the petitioner that on the date when the charge memo was framed, the petitioner was allowed to retire and he was informed that the terminal benefits due to him will be paid after taking a final decision on the enquiry to be held under Section 81 of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as well as the disciplinary action initiated against him. 5.The petitioner filed a revision under Section 153 of the Act before the Revisional Authority. The contention raised by him was that once he was allowed to retire from service in the absence of any Rule, the question of conducting a disciplinary action will not arise. The Revisional Authority held that an Enquiry Officer had already been appointed who was a retired Deputy Registrar. The petitioner will get opportunities in the enquiry and that the Enquiry Officer had already sent notice on 11.03.2009. In respect of the second issue framed by him, it was held that though the petitioner had committed several irregularities, he was allowed to retire on 31.05.2007 but without prejudice to the disciplinary action. Only on that condition he was relieved from service on 31.05.2007. The argument that no enquiry can be held against him was rejected. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.The petitioner has now come forward to challenge the order of the Revisional Authority refusing to entertain his revision as well as the charge memo and the subsequent enquiry notices in the writ petition. 7.Mr.P.Anbarasan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once a person reaches the age of superannuation and was allowed to retire then in the absence of any Rule, the question of conducting any enquiry may not be arise. It must be noted that a similar contention was extensively dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court presided by P.K.Misra, J. (as he then was) in T.K.K.THARMAR VS. REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH & OTHERS reported in 2008 (3) MLJ 877. In that case, this Court after referring to the previous Division Bench order and the decision of the Supreme Court and held that the power to take disciplinary action does not get snapped only because an employee had reached the age of his superannuation. 8.In the present case, a perusal of the order dated 31.05.2007 shows that he was allowed to retire from service with condition. The petitioner was informed that it was subject to the action under Section 81 of the Act and without prejudice to the disciplinary action. Even in respect of the Cooperative Societies, a subsequent Division Bench presided by Prabha Sridevan, J. vide W.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2008 dated 21.10.2009 in THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ANOTHER VS. G.MANOHARAN AND ANOTHER once again undertook a similar exercise. In paragraph 33, held as follows: "33.From the records produced in this case, the following facts are obvious:- a) The activities of the first respondent had caused a great deal of consternation among the authorities and they were forced to transfer him from the place where, according to them, he was causing a lot of damage. b) The disciplinary proceedings had been actually initiated before his age of superannuation, since the first charge memo is dated 06.06.2003, whereas his age of superannuation is 31.06.2003. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C) He had also given a reply to the charge memo dated 06.06.2003, but had not chosen to reveal the fact of the issuance of this earlier charge memo in his writ affidavit. d) No orders had been passed permitting him to retire; on the contrary, he was suspended on the eve of his attaining the age of superannuation. e) The Supreme Court has held that even if a person had retired, if it is proved that he had caused loss to the establishment, then proceedings can be initiated to recover the amount of loss from him. f) Even if a person has attained the age of superannuation, it is possible to dismiss him, in which event, he will not be entitled to his terminal dues vide (2007) 9 S.C.C. 15 (supra). g) In any event, Section 87 of the Act gives the power to proceed against even a past employee for recovery and restoration of the financial loss caused to the Society." 9.In that case, the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF U.P. VS. R.C. MISRA reported in 2007 (9) S.C.C. 698 was also referred to in respect of the preposition under para 33 (f). 10.In light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. SD/TK Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies (MPD) Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. 2.The Special Officer/ Joint Registrar Thanjavur Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited Tiruvarur ( Po) & (Dt). 3.The Enquiry Officer TCMF Ltd. Tiruvarur ( Po) & (Dt) Pin - 610 001. + 1 cc to Mr. M.S. Palaniswamy, Advocate SR No.6651 + 1 cc to Mr. P. Anbarasan, Advocate SR No.6579 KK(CO) SR/15.2.2010 W.P.No. 25950 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/