IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.01.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.6665 of 2008 M.P.No.1 of 2008 R.Kandhasamy ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Joint Registrar of Coop Societies, Erode Region, Erode. 2.The Special Officer, K.272, Kandhasamypalayam Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank Limited, Kandhasamypalayam Post, Sivagiri Via, Erode Taluk, Erode District. ... Respondents PRAYER:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.1029/2007 B-4, dated 17.12.2007 and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan,G.A. For R1 Mr.M.Ganeshan for R2 O R D E R The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent dated 17.12.2007. By the impugned order, the first respondent Revisional Authority, under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (for short Act) dismissed the petitioner's revision and directed the petitioner to be demoted from the existing post to a lower post. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 17.03.2008 and an order of interim stay was also granted on the same day. Since at the time of filing of the writ petition, the entire departmental proceedings were not filed, a direction was given to the respondents to produce the original records relating to the revision application filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Special Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ produced the records for perusal by this Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Senior Clerk in the second respondent Primary Agricultural Co- operative Bank. He was suspended from service by an order dated 05.07.2006. Subsequently, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.22222/2006, challenging the order of suspension. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 13.07.2006 setting aside the suspension, he was restored to duty. However, on the basis of the charges levelled against the petitioner dated 13.07.2006, a domestic enquiry was conducted and by an order of the Special Officer dated 04.11.2006, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of postponement of increment by two years. It is against the said penalty, the petitioner had filed a revision application. 4. It is seen from Section 153 of the Act that the Revisional Authority either on his own motion or on application, call for and examine the record of any officer subordinate to him and also to satisfy himself or themselves as to the regularity of such proceedings, or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made therein. If it appears to the Registrar or the Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly. 5. Section 152(2) of the Act reads as follows:- "No order prejudicial to any person shall be passed under sub-section (1) unless such person has been given an opportunity of making his representations." 6. In the present case, the revisional authority had decided that the petitioner deserves to be punished and the revision was liable to be rejected. But however in the application filed by the petitioner itself, he has directed enhancement of the punishment without due notice to him. Since the revision was entertained at the instance of the petitioner, the authority could have only rejected or allowed the revision. But upon receipt of the revision filed by the petitioner, if the authority feels that the case of the petitioner requires a higher punishment, then he ought to have exercised power under Section 153(2) of the Act extracted above. 7. In the present case, even while rejecting the revision, the authority has directed the Co-operative Society to order reduction in rank which is impermissible in law. The order of the authority in directing enhancement of the punishment suffers from material irregularity and the same has been passed contrary to law. Therefore, that portion of the impugned order in so far as directing the society to enhance the punishment by ordering reduction in rank is hereby set aside. 8.In the light of the above, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent, with a direction to follow the mandatory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ provision under Section 153(2) before passing any order adverse to the petitioner on the quantum of penalty. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /true copy / Sub Asst.Registrar svki To 1.The Joint Registrar of Coop Societies, Erode Region, Erode. 2.The Special Officer, K.272, Kandhasamypalayam Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank Limited, Kandhasamypalayam Post, Sivagiri Via, Erode Taluk, Erode District. 1CC to Government Pleader (SR.No.5147) Delivery order in W.P.No.6665 of 2008 GS (CO) SS (05.02.2010) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/