This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the third respondent, namely, the Deputy Registrar (Dairying), Thanjavur, Thanjavur District, dated 31.12.2004.
2. The petitioner had stated that he was serving as the Co-operative Sub Registrar (Dairying), till he had retired from service, on 31.3.2004. While he was working, as the Co-operative Sub Registrar (Dairying), in T.909, Kumbakonam Milk Producers Co-operative Society, surcharge proceedings had been initiated against him, under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. A surcharge notice, had been issued to him, in Na.Ka.No.1244/2002/B2, dated 7.1.2004. The surcharge was proposed to be levied, under three heads, namely, travel allowance advance of Rs.26,212.30, alleged financial loss of Rs.1,25,000/- towards computer software prepared through Global Software Company, Kumbakonam, on 9.10.2001 and for unpaid advance of Rs.45,000/-, out of the advance of Rs.1,25,000/-, advanced on 8.6.2002. Thus, a total amount of Rs.1,96,212.50, had been levied against the petitioner, as surcharge.
3. The petitioner has further stated that the financial loss alleged had taken place during the period, when the petitioner was holding office as the Special Officer of T.909, Kumbakonam Milk Producers Co-operative Society, from 1.1.2000 to 7.8.2002. By the surcharge notice, dated 7.1.2004, the petitioner had been asked to submit his explanation, within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice. Thereafter, a final notice had been sent by the third respondent, on 20.2.2004, calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. Since the petitioner had to undergo a coronary artery bye-pass surgery at Vijaya Hospital, Chennai, on 1.3.2004, the petitioner was on medical leave and therefore, he had sent a representation to the third respondent that he was in need of more time to submit his explanation. He had also requested for a copy of the enquiry report conducted, under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.
4. The petitioner has further stated that, based on his request he was permitted to inspect the report of the enquiry, under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, on 26.4.2004, in the office of the third respondent, as there was no provision in the Act to furnish a copy of Section 81 enquiry report, to the alleged delinquent. Thereafter, the petitioner had been permitted to retire, on 31.3.2004, without prejudice to the surcharge proceedings and Rule 17(b) disciplinary proceedings, to be conducted against the petitioner.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the surcharge proceedings, under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, had been initiated against the petitioner, even without furnishing a copy of Section 81 enquiry report to the petitioner. Therefore, the surcharge proceedings initiated and concluded by the third respondent against the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and void.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that there cannot be any proceedings initiated or conducted against the petitioner after his retirement from service, on his attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.3.2004. The learned counsel had further submitted that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to submit a detailed and proper explanation, based on the Section 81 enquiry report. Further, the surcharge proceedings initiated against the petitioner, had not been completed, within a period of six months, as contemplated under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. It was also contended that no opportunity of hearing had been offered to the petitioner before the third respondent had completed the surcharge proceedings, by his proceedings, dated 31.12.2004. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions.
7. He had referred to the decision of the larger bench of this Court, reported in K.Marappan V. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal (2006(4) CTC 689) to state that a writ petition filed by the petitioner, who was a Special Officer of the T.909, Kumbakonam Milk Producers' Co-operative Society, is maintainable.
8. He has relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, reported in The State of Tamil Nadu V. R.Karuppiah (2005(3) CTC 4) to emphasize the point that a government servant shall retire on the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years and that he cannot be retained in service thereafter, except with the necessary sanction of the Government, on public grounds, as per Rule 56 (1) of the Fundamental Rules.
9. The learned counsel had also relied on the decision of this Court, made in M.Rajagopal V. The Principal Labour Court, Madurai and another (2009 Writ L.R. 962) wherein, it had been held that, as per Rule 149(18)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, before a final order is passed on the basis of an enquiry officer's report, a second show cause notice is to be issued to the delinquent, calling upon him to submit his further explanation. Further, the non furnishing of a copy of the enquiry officer's report and the failure to afford a personal hearing would cause serious prejudice to the delinquent. Therefore, any order passed, without affording such opportunities, would be arbitrary and illegal.
10. In view of the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the third respondent, on 31.12.2004.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the cases cited by the petitioner cannot be applicable to the present case to quash the impugned proceedings of the third respondent, dated 31.12.2004, since the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, before this Court, belatedly, after nearly five years from the date of the said impugned order. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hit by the `Doctrine of Laches'. Further, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy, to challenge the impugned order passed by the third respondent, invoking Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, in Section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act, 1983.
12. The petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for the delay of nearly five years in challenging the impugned proceedings of the third respondent, dated 31.12.2004. In such circumstances, for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion, on the merits of the matter. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
csh To
1.The Commissioner for Milk Production and Diary Development, Madavaram, Chennai-600 051.
2.The Additional Registrar/ Deputy Milk Commissioner, Office of the Milk Production and Diary Development, Chennai-600 051.
3.The Deputy Registrar (Dairying), Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
4.The Deputy Registrary (Dairying), Dindigul, Dindigul District.