THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.No.16615 of 2010 S.NO.205 B.KOMARAPALAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. REP. BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER B.KOMARAPALAYAM, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER Vs.
1 THE PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE NAMAKKAL.
2 THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES TIRUCHENGODE CIRCLE TIRUCHENGODE.
3 A.CHANDRASEKARAN FORMER SECRETARY B.KOMARAPALAYAM CO- OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. NOW RESIDING AT NO.13/4 THOGAMALAI CHETTY STREET BODINAYAKKANUR POST THENI DT.
4 G.THIAGARAJAN FORMER SPECIAL OFFICER NOW RESIDING AT NO.
96 KAVERI STREET BHAVANI ERODE DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Judgement and decree passed in C.M.A. (C.S) No.33/2003 dated 30.09.2009 on the file of the 1st respondent quash the same.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
vaan For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy For Respondent No.2 : Mr.V.Selvaraj Addl. Govt. Pleader For Respondent No.4 : Mr.N.Manoharan ***** O R D E R It is seen from the docket order that the writ petition filed against the third respondent is dismissed by this Court for non compliance of the order, dated 11.1.2012. However, it is open to the petitioner Bank to proceed against the 4th respondent for recovery of the award amount passed by the second respondent.
The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs.
22.9.2017 Speaking/Non Speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vaan
1 THE PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE NAMAKKAL.
2 THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OFCO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TIRUCHENGODE CIRCLE, TIRUCHENGODE.
W.P.No.16615 of 2010 29.8.2017 S.V.K.Sahasramam Vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tiruvannamalai Circle, Tiruvannamalai and others (2008) 8 MLJ 231) The relevant paragraphs are extracted as follows:
“9. It is nobody's case that in the instant case, the proceeding under Section 81 of the said Act amounts to an enquiry which can be called a departmental or disciplinary enquiry. It cannot be disputed that an enquiry under Section 81 of the said Act is an enquiry in public interest in order to find out whether the affairs of a cooperative society are conducted legally and whether there are financial improprieties in the matter of conduct of its affairs. Such an enquiry cannot be prima facie compared to an enquiry against any individual employee. It is obviously true that as a follow up action on such enquiry under Section 81, various other steps may be taken, viz, surcharge proceedings can be initiated under Section 87 and steps can be also taken for initiating criminal proceedings. In the instant case, both these steps have been taken.
10. Before the learned Judge of the Writ Court, the appellant relied on two learned single Bench judgments of this Court rendered in the case of T.V.Ekambaram v. Cooperative Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Madurai 2000 (2) CTC 559 and in the case of Gabriel Vs.Deputy Registrar (Housing), Cuddalore (2003) 2 MLJ 624 - 2003 (3) CTC 23. In both these two judgments, the provisions of Section 87 of the said Act which relate to surcharge proceedings were examined and the learned Judges in both the aforesaid judgments construed the following proviso to Section 87:
“Provided further that the action commenced under this sub-section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of such commencement or such further period or periods as the next higher authority may permit but such extended period or periods shall not exceed six months in the aggregate.''
Considering the said time limit of six months, the learned Judges came to the conclusion that the said period of six months is mandatory.
11. We are constrained to hold that even though no appeal has been taken to us from the said judgments, yet having regard to the well settled legal position which has been referred to hereinabove, the finding of the learned Judges in these two judgments that the period of six months in the second proviso to Section 87 of the said Act is mandatory is not a correct finding in law. We find that even though before the learned Judge of the Writ Court those two judgments of the learned single Bench were cited, the learned Judge of the writ Court was not swayed by those two decisions and came to a correct finding, relying upon the well settled proposition laid down by the Supreme Court as pointed above hereinabove.
12. We, therefore, affirm the order of the learned single Judge in this case. We are of the view that in a case where there are allegations of embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds, the members of general public who have been cheated have no control over those who hold the enquiry in respect of the time limit. To hold that such an enquiry which has been continued beyond the time limit is bad would cause great injustice."
13. Therefore, if such enquiry is continued beyond the time limit mentioned in the relevant statute, the said time limit cannot be held to be mandatory in view of the principles laid down in Montreal Street Railway Company v Normandi (supra) which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.”
S.Ramadevi vs The Special Officer (2016-4 L.W. 452) has held as under:
"24.In so far as furnishing of copies of certain documents and giving adequate opportunities to put forth the case is concerned, the proceedings do show that the appellant was permitted inspection of the material records. Depositions were given to her. She was given repeated opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses, which she earlier declined on account of absence of documents and thereafter also refused to cross-examine the witnesses. It cannot be said, there was inadequacy of opportunity violating the principles of natural justice as applicable to such proceedings. The judgment sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sambandam vs. The Deputy Registrar (Credit) Co-op. Societies, Mylapore, Madras, 1999 (3) MLJ 310, would not really apply, as in the facts of that case, the enquiry report had not been furnished, while the protest in the present case is apparently on an incomplete enquiry report. It does appear from the conduct of the appellant that excuses were sought to be made, despite sufficient opportunities to defend her case, of violation of principles of natural justice rather there being actually any such absence. The second plea is also, thus, rejected.''