IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.23591 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 A. Ganesan ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Tiruchengode Circle Namakkal District 2. S.390, Pothanur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited Represented by its Secretary Pothanur, Namakkal District ... Respondents PRAYER:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Judgment and decree in Tha.Va.No.2779/99 on the file of the first respondent, dated 27.06.2005 and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned. For Petitioner : Mr. S. Kamadevan For R1 : Mrs. Lita Srinivasan Government Advocate For R2 : Mr. M.S. Palaniswamy ORDER The petitioner, A.Ganesan, has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Judgment and decree in Tha.Va.No.2779/99 on the file of the first respondent, dated 27.06.2005 and quash the same insofar as the petitioner is concerned. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The case of the petitioner is that he has been working as Jewel Appraiser in the second respondent Co-operative Credit Society Limited for about 25 years. He has to appraise the jewel of the customers received by the second respondent Society. His job is a limited one to the extent of appraising the jewels pledged by the members of the Society. At the same time, he has no authority under the bye-laws of the Society to verify the accounts. The Secretary, Accountants, Cashier and Salesman are duly bound to take care of the accounts of the society. It was further submitted that he was not entrusted with the job of checking the accounts and even such entrustment also cannot be made by the second respondent Society. While so, the second respondent made an allegation against the tender notice including the Secretary, Accountants, Cashier and Salesman of the society, for having caused a loss to the tune of Rs.4,45,641/- to the society. An enquiry was held under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Enquiry Officer has not given any finding that he was guilty of any misappropriation, but, it was held that he was also responsible for the account and thus failed to do so and on the basis of the enquiry report filed under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the second respondent also filed Tha.Va.2779/98-99 before the first respondent under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, seeking to recover the said amount of Rs.4,45,641/- with interest from his monthly salary at the rate of Rs.2000/- for the last 19 months. After receipt of the said claim, the first respondent entertained the claim and has passed the present impugned order. Therefore, the only crux of the issue raised by the present Writ Petitioner is, whether the order passed by the first respondent is maintainable or not. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the first respondent ought not to have passed the present impugned order as the first respondent has no jurisdiction, inasmuch as he failed to see that under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the impugned order is not maintainable against him for the reason that under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act will apply only if the dispute is between a member and the Society whereas the petitioner is a paid employee. In support of his contention, he relied upon a common order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.23696 and 19680 of 2008, dated 09.01.2009. He further submitted that this Court has already decided in the above said Writ Petition stating that the first respondent-Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies has no jurisdiction to decide any monetary claim from an employee of a Society when an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act is pending. On that basis, a prayer was made to set aside the impugned order by allowing the Writ Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. In reply, without filing counter affidavit, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner, if aggrieved by the impugned order, has a right of appeal under Section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. 5. The submission made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent does not hold good for the reason that the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the first respondent on the ground of no jurisdiction by specifically taking a plea that there is a claim adjudicated by the petitioner and therefore, the first respondent-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction whatsoever. This submission has already been found favour by this Court in its order dated 09.01.2009 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 23696 and 19680 of 2008. The core issue raised in the said Writ Petition was that initiation of proceedings under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act against a Servant or Officer of the Co- operative Society is not at all maintainable and that when an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act is pending, it is highly inappropriate on the part of the Co-operative Societies to initiate proceedings as against the petitioners under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The learned Judge dealt with the said issue after going through various Judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court and arrived at a conclusion that no dispute can be referred to the Registrar under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act against an employee of the Co-operative Society. In the case on hand also, the first respondent-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has failed to see that under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, only the disputes between the Society and its members can be decided, but, any dispute against a paid employee of the Society and a claim arising therefrom cannot be referred under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Since the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order passed in W.P.Nos.23696 and 19680 of 2008, in the light of the said decision, the impugned proceedings herein are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. 5. With the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ smn To 1. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Tiruchengode Circle Namakkal District 2. The Secretary S.390, Pothanur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited Pothanur, Namakkal District. 1 cc To Mr.S.K. Kamadevan, Advocate Sr.22431 1 cc To Government Pleader Advocate Sr.22768 1 cc To Mr.M.S. Palaniswamy, Advocate Sr22497 W.P.No.23591 of 2010 JSV(CO) Eu 4.5.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/