The writ petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2085/15/SA Pa 2, dated 12.06.2015 of the second respondent herein, quash the same and consequently, direct him not to precipitate any penal action under the Criminal Law against the petitioner in respect of the issue covered under the surcharge notice, which is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
(i) The first respondent society is a Labour Contract Society, which was registered with Panchayat Union and the Panchayat Union gives various works to the society, who in turn, gets the work done by its members. After receiving the payment from the Unions, the society gives the same to its members after deducting 3% commission for functioning of the society.
(ii) In such circumstances, an enquiry was ordered by the second respondent under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 against the petitioner. Based on the same, an enquiry was conduced and a report dated 03.02.2015 was submitted to the second respondent. According to the said enquiry report, the petitioner was given show cause notice dated 12.06.2015 asking her as to why an amount of Rs.2,18,727/- should not be recovered from the petitioner for the alleged loss caused by her to the society along with one Thiru K.Mohan, Assistant/Secretary (I/c) of the society for not crediting 3% commission to the society from 1.4.2008. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not responsible for the alleged loss sustained by the society as stated in the show cause notice since the entire amount of Rs.5,38,229/- has been paid to the first respondent - society by K.Mohan, Assistant/Secretary (I/c) of the society. However, the second respondent insisted the petitioner to pay the amount. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has submitted that the first respondent society had already recovered the above said surcharge amount from Mohan, Assistant/Secretary (I/c) of the society. Therefore, as on today, no amount is pending for recovery from the petitioner.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent has submitted that the impugned notice issued by the second respondent to the petitioner is only a show cause notice. For the said show cause notice, the petitioner has already sent an explanation dated 06.07.2015 stating that the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,38,229/-has been settled to the first respondent - society by K.Mohan, Assistant/Secretary (I/c) of the society, for which, the first respondent society has also sent a communication dated 6.7.2015 to the second respondent. But, the interest amount has not been paid by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the interest to the principal surcharge amount as per Section 87(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. However, the second respondent - society shall consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the communication sent by the first respondent - society and pass the appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law.
6. I have heard Mr.S.Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.S.Palani Samy, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.L.P.Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the second respondent.
7. According to the petitioner, the amount mentioned in the impugned notice has been recovered from Mohan, Assistant/Secretary (I/c) of the society. The first respondent - Society has also sent a communication to the second respondent. Therefore, according to him, no amount is pending for recovery from the petitioner and the matter has already been settled.
8. According to the second respondent - society, the interest amount has not been paid by the petitioner and though the first respondent submitted that the entire amount has been recovered from Mohan, Assistant/Secretary (I/c), they have not recovered the interest amount. Therefore, on the basis of the explanation and the communication sent by the petitioner and the first respondent respectively, the second respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.
9. Taking into consideration the above said facts, the first respondent is directed to submit a fresh representation to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said representation, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Till such time, the second respondent is directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner.
10. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index: Yes/No 20.03.2017 Internet: Yes/No cla To
1. D D 151, Karimangalam Labour Contract Society, Karimangalam, Palacode, Dharmapuri District, Rep. by its President.
2. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (Full additional charge), Dharmapuri.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.
cla
W.P.No.33269 of 2015
20.03.2017
http://www.judis.nic.in