Heard Mr.Veera Kathiravan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for and quash the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 12.11.2009, and to direct the first respondent to entertain the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner, on 02.11.2009, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that, on 27.07.2009, the second respondent had passed an order, imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment, with cumulative effect, for a period of six months. The main charge against the petitioner was that he had opened a Savings Bank Account in the Ramalingam Nagar Branch of the second respondent Co-operative Bank, without pursuing the relevant records, properly. After an enquiry had been held, the second respondent had passed the order of punishment against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred the Review Petition before the second respondent. However, the second respondent had stated that the Review Petition, filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable and that the petitioner has to approach the first respondent, under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operatives Act, 1983, by filing a revision. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred the Revision Petition before the first respondent, on 02.11.2009, under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. However, the first respondent had rejected the Revision Petition, on the ground of latches, stating that the petitioner had approached the first respondent, belatedly
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the delay in filing the Revision Petition is due to the fact that, earlier, the petitioner had approached the second respondent by way of a Review Petition. Further, the delay is only of two days in filing the Revision Petition before the first respondent and the delay is neither wilful nor wanton, but only due to the reason that the petitioner had approached the second respondent, under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.
5. In view of the fact that the delay in filing the Revision Petition before the first respondent is only of two days and since the petitioner has shown sufficient reasons for the delay and also taking into account of the fact that this Court, in similar circumstances, had passed an order, on 10.11.2009, in W.P.No.11434 of 2009, the delay of two days, in filing the Revision Petition, before the first respondent is condoned and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent, to be decided on merits and in accordance with law, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the second respondent. The first respondent is further directed to complete the enquiry and to pass final orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is expected to co-operate in the enquiry before the first respondent.
6. The writ petition is disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
cs To
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Trichy Region, Trichy.
2.The Special Officer, Trichy District Central Co-operative Bank, Trichy.