WA/1878/2024 of The Government Of Tamil Nadu Vs P Rajaram on 29 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN,J.) The unsuccessful respondents in W.P.No.1660 of 2015 are the appellants herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the writ petition.

3. The writ petitioner filed W.P.No.1660 of 2015 for the following relief: "…..to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.(T) No.257 dated 03.11.2014, quash the same and direct the respondents to settle the petitioner's retirement benefits with arrears in accordance with law." 4(i). It is the case of the petitioner that he worked as Sub Registrar / Managing Director of the Dindigul Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society between the period 01.05.2000 and 25.05.2000. It is the further case of the petitioner that at that point in time, the Management of the affairs of the marketing society was entirely done only by the elected Board,

WA No. 1878 of 2024

and he had no knowledge about sanctioning and disbursing loans. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that only out of compulsion did he subscribe his signature to clear a few accounts, as he could not go against the wishes of the elected Board. The said incidents were communicated to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dindigul, on several occasions; however, no action was taken.

(ii) When the facts remained so, the petitioner received a Charge Memo in Na.Ka.No.2515/2003 dated 11.04.2003 from the Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Dindigul Circle, framing one charge against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The said charge related to irregularities committed during the period from 01.05.2000 to 20.05.2000 regarding the pledge of jewels by customers and a loss to the tune of Rs.2,48,000/-. On the basis of the said charge memo, an inquiry was conducted, and an Inquiry Report dated 08.12.2003 was submitted. Based on the said report, the third respondent imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for six months with cumulative effect. The said order of punishment was challenged by the writ petitioner before the second respondent, who confirmed the order of punishment vide proceedings in R.C.No.70088/2004/DA3 dated 29.06.2004. As against the order of the second respondent, the petitioner filed a revision before the first respondent. The first respondent dismissed the revision vide G.O.(T) No.57 dated 01.03.2007.

WA No. 1878 of 2024

Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No.8863 of 2007 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. This Court, by order dated 06.11.2012, set aside the order of the first respondent and remanded the matter to the first respondent to pass a speaking order based on the facts and circumstances of the case placed before the first respondent. This Court also made it clear that while deciding the issue, the first respondent shall also obtain the opinion of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC). The said order was set aside only on technical grounds and not on merits.

(iii) Pursuant to the order in W.P.(MD) No.8863 of 2007, the matter was once again heard by the first respondent, and the impugned order in G.O.(T) No.257 dated 03.11.2014 was passed, dismissing the contentions of the petitioner and confirming the order of punishment. The petitioner challenged the same in W.P.No.1660 of 2015 on the ground that no proper reasoning was given by the first respondent and that the first respondent had not taken into consideration various complaints made to the Deputy Registrar, Dindigul Circle, and others by the writ petitioner. The first respondent had also not properly decided the issue regarding the disbursal of loans, and the role of the writ petitioner was not in any way connected with loan disbursement.

5. The above contention of the writ petitioner was challenged by the respondents by way of a counter affidavit. It is stated that the Society has its own bylaws with regard to its objects and other affairs. The petitioner was the

WA No. 1878 of 2024

Managing Director between 01.05.2000 and 20.05.2000. The respondents further submitted that as per Section 84 of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules, the petitioner, being the Managing Director of the said Society, was the Chief Executive Officer and was responsible for day-to-day administration. He had to maintain the accounts of the Society and ensure that they were proper and correct. The "produce pledge loans" for tamarind sanctioned by the Society to the tune of Rs.2,48,000/- to a few members outside the area of operation of the Society were granted without following the Society's rules and bye-laws. The respondents further submitted that only on the basis of the aforesaid illegalities was a punishment of stoppage of increment for six months with cumulative effect imposed, and that the punishment was not disproportionate. The Writ Court, on hearing the submissions of both parties, came to the conclusion that the disciplinary authority had not given any conclusive reasons for imposing such a punishment, and on that ground, set aside the order of punishment. Challenging the said order of the Writ Court, the respondents have filed the present writ appeal.

5. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent / writ petitioner.

6. In the earlier round of litigation in W.P.(MD) No.8863 of 2007, this Court directed the first respondent to reconsider the order of punishment within a period of eight weeks. Only thereafter was the impugned order dated

WA No. 1878 of 2024

03.11.2014 passed. The first respondent complied with the order of remand, considered in detail the charges and the explanation offered by the petitioner, and only then came to the conclusion that no interference was warranted with respect to the punishment imposed by the original authority. The imposition of punishment is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. The Writ Court has limited jurisdiction to decide whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charge or not. Even if the Court comes to the conclusion that the punishment is disproportionate, the only option available to the Writ Court is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh orders with respect to the quantum of punishment. The said exercise was already done in the earlier round of litigation. Only after the order of remand did the first respondent, in compliance therewith, pass a detailed order giving reasons for rejecting the contentions raised by the writ petitioner. However, in W.P.No.1660 of 2015, the Writ Court simply set aside the order of punishment by stating that the first respondent had not given any reasons and that there was no discussion with regard to how such a conclusion was arrived at. On a bare reading of the order of the first respondent impugned in the writ petition, we find that the first respondent complied with the order of remand and passed a detailed order giving reasons as to why the appeal presented by the writ petitioner could not be entertained. In view of that matter, the Writ Court ought not to have set aside the order of punishment.

WA No. 1878 of 2024

7. In view of the above said findings, we are inclined to interfere with the order of the Writ Court. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1660 of 2015 is set aside, and the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rli

WA No. 1878 of 2024

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. rli Pre-Delivery Judgment in WA No. 1878 of 2024 07-10-2026

WA No. 1878 of 2024