THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN W.A.No.1889 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 E.S.Sundara Mahalingam ...Appellant vs.
1. The Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases (District Judge) Tirunelveli.
2. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cheranmadevi, Tirunelveli District.
3. The Administrator Valliyur Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, D.R.L.(E) II, Panagudi, Tirunelveli District. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed Under Clause 15 of the Letters Patents Act against the order passed in W.P.No.12727 of 2003 dated 8.2.2010.
For Appellant : Mr.Balan Haridas For Respondents : Mrs.T.Girija Government Advocate for R1 and R2
J U D G M E N T
K.K. SASIDHARAN,J.
The challenge in this writ appeal is to the order dated 8 February, 2010 in W.P.No.12727 of 2003 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the disciplinary authority which was confirmed by the Special Tribunal for Co-operative cases.
2. The appellant was functioning as Supervisor of Valliyur Co- operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank at Panagudi in the District of Tirunelveli. While so, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed an order to conduct an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act with regard to the loss sustained by the Bank on account of jewellery loan given to various persons by pledging spurious jewels. The appellant was originally suspended from service and later he was dismissed.
3. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Based on the said report, the second respondent initiated surcharge proceeding against the appellant. The second respondent ultimately passed an order dated 21 June, 1999 directing the appellant and others to pay a sum of Rs.12,75,400/-. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the first respondent/Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases. The first respondent confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. The order dated 20 February, 2003 in C.M.A.(C.S.)109 of 1999 was challenged before the Writ Court.
4. The learned Single Judge found that altogether two contentions were raised by the appellant. The first contention relates to failure on the part of the authorities to give a copy of the enquiry report. The said contention was rejected on the ground that in the memorandum of appeal no such plea was raised. The second contention relates to the nature of duty of the appellant in the light of bye-law No.32(4)(a)(ii). Though the learned Judge extracted the said bye-law, no finding was given as to whether the appellant could be held responsible for the loss. The writ petition was dismissed without deciding the said issue. It is the said order which is impugned in this writ appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The appellant appears to have raised a substantial contention based on bye-law No.32(4)(a)(ii). The said bye-law reads thus:
"The sanctioning authority and the Appraiser shall be held responsible for any loss that the Bank may sustain in the loans issued arising out of negligence or errors in valuation".
7. According to the appellant, he was only a Supervisor and as such, he has no part to play in the matter of sanctioning jewel loans. The appellant contended that the jewels were verified by the appraiser and it was thereafter given to the Secretary, being the Sanctioning Authority and therefore, he has no role to play in the matter. The respondents contended that the application for gold loans have to be forwarded to the Secretary through the appellant and in view of his position as Supervisor, he was also responsible fore the loss sustained by the Bank.
8. Though the learned Single Judge in paragraph 16 of the order referred to the contention raised by the appellant with regard to bye-law No.32(4)(a)(ii), the said issue appears to have not considered at all. The learned Judge only observed that there is no merit in the contention in view of the reasons set out earlier. However, even in the earlier paragraphs, no effort appears to have been taken to meet the contention raised by the appellant on the basis of bye-law 32(4)(a)(ii).
9. The appellant has raised a moot question as to whether the lower cadre employee has a role to play in the matter of sanctioning loan.
10. When a similar issue was raised by Thiru.S.Ponniah in the connected matter in W.A.No.627 of 2010, a Division Bench of this Court set aside the order in W.P.No.12728 of 2003 and remitted the writ petition to the Writ Court. In fact a common order was passed by the respondents. The order allowing the writ appeal in W.A.No.627 of 2010 and remitting the matter to the Writ Court would equally apply to the case of the appellant. We are therefore of the view that the matter should be remitted to the Writ Court to pass a fresh order on merits with regard to the contention regarding Bye-law No.32(4)(a)(ii).
11. Accordingly, by following the judgment in W.A.No.627 of 2010, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Writ Court for the limited purpose of deciding the question with regard to the scope and ambit of bye-law No.32(4)(a)(ii). It is made clear that we have not considered the contention raised by the appellant with regard to his role in the transaction in the light of bye-law 32(4)(a)(ii). It is up to the learned Single Judge to consider the issue on merits and as per law.
12. The writ appeal is disposed of as indicated above. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
svki (K.K.SASIDHARAN.,J.) (M.V.MURALIDARAN.,J.) 19 June 2017 To
1. The Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases (District Judge) Tirunelveli.
2. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cheranmadevi, Tirunelveli District.
3. The Administrator Valliyur Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, D.R.L.(E) II, Panagudi, Tirunelveli District.
K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.
and M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.
(svki) W.A.No.1889 of 2011 19.06.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in