WP/10740/2023 of P.Jayachandra Sekar Vs The Registrar on 21 September 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.1323/2018/Pa2 and seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant benefits within the time frame that may be stipulated by this Court.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 18.11.2022 is perverse, as the reviewing authority has not properly considered the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry. It Page No.

is the further submission of the learned counsel that, while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the reviewing authority has not assigned sufficient reasons for such disagreement. The learned counsel would further contend that, after the disciplinary authority had accepted the enquiry proceedings and permitted the petitioner to rejoin duty, the reviewing authority’s action in suo motu reopening the proceedings and imposing the punishment of dismissal through the impugned order is illegal. The learned counsel would also raise a plea of discrimination, contending that the co- delinquent was imposed with a lenient punishment, whereas the petitioner was imposed with the severest punishment of dismissal from service.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would contend that the petitioner had been working as a Senior Clerk in the office of the fourth respondent Society since 2001 and that, in 2013, he was deputed to work as a Senior Clerk in the Anthiyur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society. While so, an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act was conducted in the fourth respondent Society, wherein serious financial irregularities relating to the Page No.

period from 01.04.2009 to 10.01.2015 were found. Pursuant to the Section 81 enquiry report dated 23.12.2014, the petitioner was transferred back to his parent Society, namely, the fourth respondent Society, on 09.02.2015. Thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioner in connection with the said financial irregularities.

3.1. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.4625 of 2018 challenging the proceedings initiated pursuant to the Section 81 enquiry. In the said Writ Petition, this Court directed the conduct of a suo motu revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Though the Enquiry Officer had held that the charges against the petitioner were not proved, the reviewing authority, upon considering the materials available on record and after following the prescribed procedure, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passed an order of dismissal from service on 24.04.2017. Hence, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent that, considering the magnitude of the financial irregularities involving a sum of Rs.11,87,98,833/-, the punishment of dismissal imposed Page No.

on the petitioner is proportionate to the gravity of the charges. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. Though the petitioner has raised several contentions, it is not his case that the procedure contemplated under the statute was not followed or that he was denied a sufficient opportunity to defend himself in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It is an admitted fact that, in the domestic enquiry, the petitioner was absolved of all the charges. However, the reviewing authority, upon disagreeing with the findings recorded in the enquiry report, found the petitioner guilty of the charges and passed the order of dismissal from service.

6. The main grievance expressed by the petitioner pertains to the power and jurisdiction of the reviewing authority. According to the Page No.

petitioner, the reviewing authority has no authority or jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings once an order dropping the charges against the delinquent employee has been passed. However, on considering the factual circumstances of the present case, it is evident that the suo motu revision was initiated not independently by the authority concerned, but pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.4625 of 2018, dated 24.08.2018. Since the impugned order of dismissal was passed pursuant to the exercise of powers under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the reviewing authority proceeded with the matter by exercising its suo motu revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, the petitioner cannot sustain his objection regarding the authority of the reviewing authority to initiate the suo motu revision in the present case.

7. After arriving at a prima facie opinion, the authorities issued a second show-cause notice, and only thereafter was the order of dismissal passed. It was only at the stage of issuance of the second show-cause notice that the petitioner raised the defence that the charges had already been dropped. It is to be pointed out that the order dropping the charges was Page No.

passed by the then President on 24.11.2016, as could be seen from the date appearing at the top of the said order. Thereafter, a second show-cause notice was issued by the very same person in his capacity as the President of the Society on 29.03.2017, with the date appearing in handwriting. It is noteworthy that, in both documents, though the contents were typed, the dates were written by hand.

8. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. For ready reference, the relevant provision is extracted hereunder:- “Section 153 of The Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983:Revision: (1) The Registrar may, of his own motion or on application, call for and examine the record of any officer subordinate to him or of the board or any officer of a registered society or of the competent authority constituted under sub-section

(3) of section 75 and the Government may, of their own motion or on application, call for and examine the record of the Registrar, in respect of any proceedings under this Act or the Rules or the bye- laws not being a proceeding in respect of which an appeal to the Tribunal is provided by subsection (1) of section 152 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; and, if in any case, it appears to the Registrar or the Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he or they may pass orders accordingly: Page No.

Provided that every application to the Registrar or the Government for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within ninety days from the date on which the proceedings, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant.

(2) 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.

(3) The Registrar or the Government, as the case may be, may' suspend the execution of the decision or order pending the exercise of his or their power under sub-section (1) in respect thereof.

(4) The Registrar or the Government may award costs in any proceedings under this section to be paid either out of the funds of the society or by such party to the application for revision as the Registrar or the Government may deem fit.”

9. In W.P.No.4625 of 2018, this Court, while granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of dismissal, had also directed the Registrar to take appropriate action by conducting an independent enquiry. In the case in hand, pursuant to the direction of this Court, the reviewing authority conducted the suo motu revision and found substantial material to support the charges against the petitioner. Section 153(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act provides that no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed under sub-section (1) unless such person has been given an opportunity to make a representation. In the present case, it is not the contention of the petitioner that he was denied an opportunity of hearing before the reviewing authority. Page No.

10. The only question that now requires determination is whether the impugned order suffers from perversity, particularly with reference to the two documents referred to above. The contention of the petitioner is that, once the charges had been dropped, the same could not be reopened by issuing a second show-cause notice. The relevant portion of the impugned order, wherein the reviewing authority has dealt with the said two documents, is extracted hereunder:- “09.09.2020 அன்று விசாரணை க்கு ஆஜரான, ஒன்றுக்கொ ன்று முரணாக இரண்டு ஆணை கள் வழங்கிய சங்கத்தின் முன்னாள் தலை வர் திரு.எஸ்.விஸ்வநாதன், உள்ளக விசாரணை அலுவலர் மனுதாரர் மீதான குற்றச்சாட்டுக்கள் நிரூபணமாகவில்லை

என்று அறிக்கை

அளித்ததன் அடிப்படை யில், குற்றச்சாட்டுக்களை

கை விட்டு 24.11.2016ல் 24.04.2017-ல் நிரந்தர பணிநீக்கம் செ ய்து ஆணை

வழங்கியதாகவும் தெ ரிவித்தார். ஆணை

வழங்கியதாகவும், பிற நிர்வாகக் குழுவினர்களின் நிர்ப்பந்தத்தால் மனுதாரரை ஆனால், மனுதாரர் மீதான குற்றச்சாட்டுக்கள் கை விட்டு 24.11.2016ல் ஆணை

வழங்கிய பிறகு, ஏன் 23.12.2016ல் மனுதாரர் விளக்கம் அளிக்க கோ ரிய ஆவணங்களை , தாராபுரம் சரக துணை ப்பதிவாளர் அலுவலகத்தில் பெ ற்றுக் கொ ண்டார் என்பது குறித்தோ , எதற்காக 25.03.2017-க்குள், மனுதாரர் Page No.

மீதான ஒழுங்கு நடவடிக்கை யை

முடிவு கட்டுவதாக தாராபுரம் சரக துணை ப்பதிவாளருக்கு கடிதம் எழுதியது குறித்தோ விளக்கம் அளிக்கவில்லை . மனுதாரரும் தனது வாதுரை மற்றும் எழுத்துப்பூர்வ விளக்கத்தில் மே ற்கூறப்பட்ட முரண்பாடு குறித்து சரியான விளக்கம் அளிக்கவில்லை . அதை விடுத்து, ஒரு குற்றச்சாட்டுக்கு இரண்டு தண்டனை கள் என தவறான தகவல் அளித்துள்ளார். எனவே , மே ற்படி ஆவணங்கள் பரிசீலனை

செ ய்யப்பட்டதன் அடிப்படை யில், னாள் தலை வர் திரு.எஸ்.விஸ்வநாதன் என்பவரால் மனுதாரரை நிரந்தர சங்கத்தின் முன்னாள் பணிநீக்கம் செ ய்து 24.04.2017-ல் ஆணை வழங்கப்பட்ட பிறகே , மனுதாரரின் மீதான குற்றச்சாட்டுக்களை கை விடுவதாக 24.11.2016-ம் தே தியிட்டு அதே

தலை வரால் போ லியான ஆணை

முன்தே தியிட்டு தயார் செ ய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது எனவும் மனுதாரர் மற்றும் திரு.எஸ்.விஸ்வநாதன் இருவரும் திட்டமிட்டு, சங்கத்தின் முன்னாள் தலை வர் திரு.எஸ்.விஸ்வநாதன் இருவ முன்தே தியிட்டு போ லியான ஆணை தயார் செ ய்து, மாண்பமை செ ன்னை உயர்நீதி மன்றம் மற்றும் இச்சீராய்வு மன்றத்தில் சமர்ப்பித்து ஏமாற்றும் நோ க்கத்தில் செ யல்பட்டுள்ளனர் என்று இச்சீராய்வு மன்றம் முடிவு செ ய்கிறது.”

11. A perusal of the aforesaid portion of the impugned order reveals that the reviewing authority recorded a finding that the then President had Page No.

/ 14

colluded with the petitioner and issued the order dropping the charges by antedating the same. Further, a categorical finding was recorded in the suo motu revision that a second show-cause notice had been issued and that the petitioner had been afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself. During the proceedings before the reviewing authority, the petitioner himself had stated that he had been provided with all necessary opportunities and that he did not require any further time to produce records or make further submissions. From the aforesaid statement of the petitioner, it is evident that he was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend his case.

12. On a careful consideration of the entire materials available on record, this Court is of the view that the requirements of Section 153(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act have been complied with pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. This Court also finds no perversity in the order passed by the reviewing authority. Though the petitioner has raised various factual defences, the same, at best, may give rise to an alternative view of the matter, which, by itself, would not constitute a sufficient ground for interfering with a well-reasoned order. This Page No.

/ 14

Court would once again reiterate that, in W.P.No.4625 of 2018, liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the order of dismissal. However, the petitioner has not challenged the said punishment of dismissal, as per the directions issued therein. Therefore, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. 21.09.2026 Index: Yes Speaking Order: Yes Neutral Case Citation: Yes kv/cs Page No.

/ 14

To

1. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, N.V.Natarajan Maligai, No.170, E.V.R.Periyar High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.

2. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Tirupur Region, Tirupur District.

3. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dharapuram Circle, Dharapuram, Tirupur District.

4. The President, Kongalanagaram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Kongalanagaram, Gudumangalam via, Udumalpet Taluk, Tirupur District. Page No.

/ 14

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. kv/cs W.P.No.10740 of 2023

21.09.2026 Page No.

/ 14