WP/26722/2024 of V.VARADHARAJAN Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 23 September 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the third respondent in No.Nil, dated 19.09.2019, the order passed by the second respondent in Review Petition No.5938 of 2019, dated 23.11.2020, and the order passed in Na.Ka.No.3832/2022 SA PA, dated 15.03.2023, and to quash the same, and consequently, direct respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was appointed through the Employment Exchange as a Writer in the third respondent Society on 13.06.1990. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Senior Clerk and subsequently as an Assistant Secretary. Ultimately, he was transferred to the fourth respondent Society and appointed as Secretary-in-Charge with effect from 04.06.2010. While the petitioner was serving as Secretary, he was placed under suspension on 08.11.2018 for alleged irregularities. Thereafter, a charge memorandum was issued on 27.03.2019, alleging misappropriation of various amounts totalling approximately

Rs.10,00,000/- and recommending the sanction of a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- in violation of the Society’s guidelines. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memorandum on 20.04.2019. However, the third respondent imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Revisional Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review petition, which was dismissed by the Reviewing Authority vide order dated 15.03.2023.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fourth respondent Society is a large Society and that there was a shortage of staff. Due to the heavy workload, the petitioner permitted the Night Watchman and the Peon to assist him. While so, they committed serious delinquencies without the knowledge of the petitioner. Since the co-delinquents had been working with him for a long period, the petitioner was compelled to repose confidence in them, which they took advantage of and cheated him. It is also his contention that the petitioner had rendered nearly 29 years of service with an unblemished track record. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate. Hence, he prayed to allow the present Writ Petition.

4. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for first and second respondents and would contend that, in his deposition, the petitioner had admitted the charges levelled against him and, therefore, he cannot have any grievance with regard to the findings rendered in the domestic enquiry. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that, though the petitioner contends that the co-delinquents had committed misconduct and that the petitioner had made good the loss caused to the respondent Society, the same would, in no way, advance the case of the petitioner. This is because the petitioner had misappropriated the funds of the Society in several transactions in which the petitioner’s signatures were found.

4.1. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that, notwithstanding his failure to properly supervise the Society and his subordinates, the petitioner himself had committed acts of misappropriation. It is his further submission that the petitioner, being the Secretary, was in a fiduciary relationship with the respondent Society and was entrusted with the responsibility of dealing with the Society’s funds. If such conduct is dealt with leniently, it would have wider repercussions and would amount to rewarding the delinquent. Therefore, he would contend that, for such acts of misappropriation, compulsory retirement is the minimum punishment warranted. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

6. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged misconduct was committed by the co-delinquents, namely, the Night Watchman and the Peon. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner could have entrusted such confidential work to the Night Watchman and the Peon. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the aforesaid conduct by itself clearly demonstrates the petitioner’s failure to properly discharge his administrative responsibilities. If there was a shortage of staff, the petitioner ought to have brought the same to the notice of the higher authorities and requested them to depute additional personnel. However, it is not the petitioner’s case that, despite making such a request, no additional person was deputed. Since the petitioner was at the helm of affairs and was responsible for the administration of the Society, he cannot simply absolve his responsibility by attributing the entire misconduct to his subordinates.

7. It is also relevant to mention that, notwithstanding the misappropriation allegedly committed by the co-delinquents, the petitioner himself had misappropriated a substantial amount, approximately Rs.10,00,000/-, and had also recommended for the sanction of a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- in violation of the Society’s Rules. There is sufficient material to establish that the aforesaid transactions were carried out under the petitioner’s signatures. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that misappropriation was committed through his subordinates, the petitioner himself had participated in the misappropriation, as evidenced through voucher signed by the petitioner.

8. It is also relevant to mention that there is no dispute with regard to the shortage of funds in the Society. When the Society issued the charge memorandum alleging misappropriation, the petitioner having admitted the shortage of funds and made good the loss. Though the petitioner contends that the shortage of amount was due to an inadvertent mistake of entrusting the work with his subordinates and the fact remains that there was a shortage of funds and that the records disclose that the subject transactions were supported by the petitioner’s signatures. Such conduct can only be construed as misappropriation. Therefore, when the petitioner himself has admitted the shortage of funds and when the records establishes that the fact that, the transactions were carried out under his signatures, the finding of the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner was responsible for the misappropriation cannot be faulted with.

9. It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner cannot absolve himself of responsibility merely by referring to the misconduct of his subordinates, particularly when the co-delinquent was also imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority, the Revisional Authority and the Reviewing Authority are well-founded. It is relevant to reiterate that, while exercising the power of judicial review, the scope of interference is limited. Unless the findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority are perverse, rendered by an incompetent authority, or contrary to the materials available on record, this Court cannot interfere with such findings.

10. In the case in hand, as stated hereinabove, the findings rendered by the authorities are based on the materials available on record and cannot be said to be perverse. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders.

11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 23-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV

To

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society, Namakkal Region, Namakkal.

2. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, Namakkal Region, Namakkal.

3. The President No.1571, Kondichettypatti, Primary Agricultural Cooperative, Credit Society Ltd, Periyapatti Post, Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal District

4. The President No.446, Siluvampatti, Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, Tiruchengodu Taluk, Namakkal District.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 26722 of 2024 23-09-2026