[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] Heard Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
2.This appeal by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies and three others is directed against the order made in W.P(MD) No.2289 of 2015, dated 04.01.2016, which was allowed by the impugned order, along with another Writ Petition filed by the respondent in W.P(MD) No. 20098 of 2015.
3.The legal issue which came up for consideration before the Writ Court was whether the respondent employee can be retained in service beyond the age of superannuation for the purpose of continuing the Disciplinary Proceedings. The writ petition was allowed holding that the appellants have no jurisdiction to do so. These orders are put to challenge before us, by way of this Writ Appeal.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, after elaborately referring to the factual matters, submitted about the seriousness of the charge framed against the respondent and submitted that the Disciplinary Proceedings ought to have been permitted to be proceeded with. Further, in support of his contention, the learned counsel referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kelpauk, Chennai and another Vs. G.Manoharan, reported in 2010 (2) CTC (234).
5.We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent on the above submission. The legal question which has arisen for consideration in this case has been answered by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, in the case of S.Andiyannan Vs. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Madurai Region, Madurai, reported in 2015 (4) CTC 1, wherein, it has been held as follows:
?Under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, once an Employee retired from service, there could be no authority vested with the Employer for continuing any Disciplinary proceeding, in the absence of relevant Service Rules permitting the Employer to continue the Disciplinary proceeding. In other words, if there is no Service Rules or Bye-law of the society empowering the Employer to continue the Departmental proceeding, the Employer, would have no authority to continue the Departmental proceeding after the retirement of the Employee.?
6.In fact, the afore-mentioned decision was followed by the learned Single Bench for allowing the writ petition. Therefore, there are no grounds made out to interfere with the order passed in the writ petition.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the respondent, in spite of having swindled a huge amount of public money, cannot be brought to books on account of a technical plea. The reference has been answered by the Hon'ble Full Bench and it will bind us as we are a Division Bench of this Court. However, if the first appellant is of the opinion that necessary amendment is required to be made in the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and the rules framed there under, it is open to the first appellant to make appropriate proposal to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.
7.In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Additional Building District Collectorate Complex, Thanthonimalai, Karur District.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, No.149, Anna Nagar Main Road, Thanthonimalai, Karur District.
3.The Administrative Officer, R-1598, Thalavapalayam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Thalavapalayam Post, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District.
4.The Enquiry Officer, R-1598, Thalavapalayam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Thalavapalayam Post, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District..