IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED;13-10-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.6206 of 2004 N.Mani ..Petitioner Vs. 1.Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vellore Region Vellore Distict 2.Special Officer C-2143, Andiappanur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Andiappanur Vaniyambadi Taluk Vellore District … Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his Proceedings No.Nil dated 28.2.2003 and the order passed by the 1st respondent in his Proceedings No.Na.Ka.7905/2003/A2 dated 15.11.2003 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. For petitioner :Mr.K.Venkataramani Senior counsel for Mr.S.Gopinathan For respondents :Mr.S.V.Duraisolaimalai Addl.Govt.Pleader (For R1) Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy (for R2) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his Proceedings No.Nil, dated 28.2.2003 and the order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.7905/2003/A2 dated 15.11.2003 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 2. Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed against the petitioner is liable to be quashed since the charges framed against the petitioner are as vague as it could be. Three false charges were leveled against the petitioner alleging that while he was working as Salesman in the Fair Price Shop he has not conducted himself properly and acted against the public interest and the public distribution system. The second charge alleged against the petitioner is that he has distributed ration commodities to 30 bogus ration card holders and that the third charge is that he has derelicted in discharging his duties. The learned senior counsel submitted that the charges are fully vague because as per the charge memo issued to the petitioner calling upon him to give his explanation, he was not able to make up clearly what the charges are and only from the statement of allegations alone the respondents have attempted to show as to what the 2nd charge is. Even then it is the statement of allegation relating to second charge and not with respect to the first charge. In view of that the learned senior counsael prayed to quash the first bogus charge for vagueness. (ii) The learned senior counsel further added that the ration cards are given by the Taluk Supply Officers. The duty of the petitioner while serving as Salesman is to disburse the commodities to the persons who are coming with the Ration Cards and he has no right or authority to suspect whether the particular ration card is genuine or false. Further, the Salesman posted in villages cannot even question the correctness of the ration card. Whileso, the respondents without holding proper enquiry into the allegation whether the ration cards are genuine or bogus, all of a sudden, declared 30 ration cards are bogus even without knowing who is in possession of these bogus ration cards and how they have come into existence and in the absence of these details and findings thereon, the petitioner cannot be proceeded with as though he is responsible for issuance of 30 bogus ration cards. Therefore, the learned senior counsel contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are baseless. On 18.12.2001 when the inspection was taken place, the petitioner was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ not at all in the ration shop. As the petitioner was out of office from the ration shop from 1997 till 10.11.2000, the allegation against the petitioner that on the date of inspection which took place on 18.12.2001 he was held responsible for the distribution of bogus ration cards, is baseless and unwarranted. (iii) The learned senior counsel further argued that the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner only out of the mala fide intention at the behest of the President of the Village on account of developing enmity towards the petitioner since the petitioner's wife contested against the said President’s wife in the Local Body election. When the petitioner’s wife contested against the said President’s wife, the President of the Village wanted the petitioner to withdraw her application, for which he refused to do so. Immediately, after the election, without any reason the petitioner was placed under suspension and charges were framed against him and he was terminated from service. (iv) Aggrieved by the order of termination, when the matter was complained by the petitioner before the Labour Officer in the conciliation proceedings, finding no merit on their side, the respondents on 24.2.1999 reinstated the petitioner in the Office. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted in the shop on 10.11.2000. Once again he was posted in the office on 14.6.2001. When the petitioner was working in the office, the District Supply Officer on sudden inspection on 18.12.2001 found some forged bills for which he was imposed with the penalty along with one another person called A.Manoharan, another Salesman. The said penalty of Rs.1,912/- was reduced to Rs.259/-. After some time, finding no other allegation against the petitioner to penalize, again the second respondent placed him under suspension on 8.1.2002 by issuing a charge memo on 8.2.2002 which was served on 15.2.2002. Aggrieved by the said suspension, W.P.No.3077/2002 was filed by the petitioner. This Court, by looking into the matter, ordered stay and thereafter he was allowed to join duty and thereafter, the stay was vacated and subsequently, he submitted his explanation but the explanation failed to appeal them and thereafter enquiry was ordered and the enquiry officer also on completion of the report, held that charge Nos.1 and 2 were proved and Charge No.3 was partly proved. Thereafter, the second show cause notice and another order directing to recover a sum of Rs.1,24,132/- were issued to the petitioner by the second respondent. Resultantly, the termination order dated 28.2.2002 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed W.P.No.10296/2003, however, the said writ petition was dismissed with a direction to file a revision. Accordingly, the revision petition was filed on 15.4.2003 and the same was dismissed on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 27.5.2003 as belated. As against that, when W.P.No.18106/2003 was filed, the order of the first respondent was set aside and subsequently, revision was resubmitted before the first respondent. Again the first respondent passed an order dismissing the revision on 15.11.2003. Aggrieved by the orders of the respondents 1 and 2 the present writ petition has been filed. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent in which the second respondent stated that when the petitioner was working as a Salesman in Andiyappanur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society from 9.11.2000 to 13.6.2001, in the year 1999, the District Supply Officer issued new Ration Cards to the villagers of Andiyappanur consisting a population of 3,000 adults and totally 936 ration cards were issued to the villagers. Subsequently door-to-door 100% verification was taken by the District Supply Officer and it was found that 30 ration cards were issued in respect of non-existing persons. However, it was found on inspection that out of the total 936 ration card holders, 30 persons holding the ration cards have not used their cards to buy the essential commodities. When these facts came to light on 28.12.2001, a doubt has arisen about the misuse of ration commodities towards 30 bogus ration cards. On properly working out the financial loss caused by the use of 30 bogus ration cards it was found out, a loss of Rs.1,24,132/- was caused to the Government. In view of complaint, the petitioner was transferred to Lalapattai village Fair Price Shop and as a result, surcharge proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the same is pending against him. When those persons in whose name the 30 bogus ration cards were issued, failed to appear before the ration shops and claim rations from December, 2001 the petitioner who was working as Salesman from 9.11.2000 to 13.6.2001 must be held responsible for these lapses. The register in the ration shops in which the petitioner was working from 9.11.2000 to 13.6.2001 contains entries to show that there are 936 ration cards. Only 906 ration cards were legally issued. The learned senior counsel further argued that when the District Supply Officer of Vellore has issued 906 ration cards to the families living in that village in the year 1999, on subsequent physical verification of the ration cards the inclusion of 30 bogus ration cards was reportedly found in March 1999 after the issuance of 906 new ration cards. Therefore, enquiry was conducted and after affording an opportunity to the petitioner it was fund that the petitioner was responsible for the issuance of 30 ration cards. On that basis, the petitionere was dismissed from service. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. (i) The arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in support of the impugned order does not contain any substance. (ii) Admittedly, the District Supply Officer at Vellore called for issuance of the new ration cards in the village of Andiappanur in the year 1999 and the District Supply Officer issued only 906 ration cards to the families in the said village. The additional counter affidavit filed by the second respondent also clearly shows that the inclusion of 30 bogus ration cards were found in March 1999 after the issuance of 906 ration cards. So, from 1990 onwards the alleged bogus ration cards were used for purchasing the ration commodities. But the petitioner was appointed as a Salesman in the ration shop only from 9.11.2000 to 13.6.2001. When 936 ration cards were already utilised even before the joining of the petitioner as a Salesman in the ration shop, it is not known how the respondents can find the petitioner responsible for either issuing the ration cards or for giving commodities on production of ration cards. (iii) As and when the consumer is carrying the ration card given to the fair price shops, the salesman has to supply the ration. In case the Salesman finds any bogus card is used, he could maximum complain to the higher officers. But in the present case, the charges levelled against the petitioner are that he has issued 30 ration cards. But the affidavit filed by the second respondent clearly disproved the case of the second respondent that the petitioner was responsible for issuing of 30 bogus ration cards. Even in the year 1999 the District Supply Officer in Vellore has issued 906 ration cards to the families living in the said village. During that relevant time, namely, from 9.11.2000 to 13.6.2001 the respondent admitted that the petitioner was working as a Salesman. Further, the inclusion of 30 bogus families was attempted to be made in March 1999 after issuance of 906 new cards. Further, the enquiry report submitted by the Co- operative Audit Assistant Director dated 12.7.2002 also admitted the fact that the 30 bogus ration cards were in use during the period from 1.4.1999 to 25.12.2001. During that period, admittedly, the petitioner was not working, because as admitted by the second respondent in the additional counter affidavit in para 4, the petitioner was working from 9.11.2000 to 13.6.2001 only. Whileso, the allegation contained in the first charge that the alleged 30 bogus ration cards were also used during the period the petitioner was serving as Salesman is highly unreasonable. (iv) Whileso, the second charge that the petitioner has sold ration commodities to 30 bogus cards by preparing false vouchers is also liable to be set aside for the reason that the Co- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ operative Sub-Registrar has recommended for allocation of ration commodities for 956 ration cards from 2000 onwards. When the Co- operative Sub-Registrar has himself recommended for allocation of sufficient ration commodities to cater to the needs of 956 ration card holders, the allegation that the petitioner is responsible for selling the ration commodities to 30 bogus ration cards is highly unwarranted. This aspect has been clarified by the second respondent in his additional counter. Para 8 thereof clearly shows that the predecessor of the second respondent seems to have been mislead by the wording and use of language in the enquiry report and has wrongly instructed the counsel appearing for the second respondent as though there was bogus ration card. This goes to show that there was no bogus ration card as alleged in the charge memo could be placed any more in this case against the petitioner. Such a stand taken by the respondent in the additional counter leads this Court to come to the conclusion that the charges issued in the charge memo are not only vague and motivated but also without any basis. (v) Further, a reading of the papers filed by both sides goes to show a fact that when the petitioner’s wife contested against the President’s wife in the Local Body election, the President of the Society wanted the petitioner to withdraw the wife’s candidature. But the petitioner’s refusal to withdraw the same, emanated enmity on him and that incident has motivated the implication of the petitioner in the false allegations. (vi) Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the impugned order of termination passed by the second respondent terminating the service of the petitioner and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. In view of the victimisation met by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all backwages within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. This writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. sal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vellore Region Vellore Distict 2.Special Officer C-2143, Andiappanur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Andiappanur Vaniyambadi Taluk Vellore District 1 cc to Mr.S. Gopinathan, Advocate, Sr. 62859 1 cc to Mr.M.S. Palaniswamy, Advocate, Sr. 63064 W.P.No.6206/2004 PA (CO) kk 3/11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/