This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2006 passed in C.M.A.(C.S)No.69 of 2002 by the Co-operative Tribunal (District Judge), Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil confirming the award dated 28.03.2001 passed in Thava.No.2 of 2000 by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
2. The short facts, leading to filing of this Civil Revision Petition is as follows:-
The petitioner herein was working as Special Officer of Arumanai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank at Arumanai from 04.09.1991 to 15.07.1994. During his tenureship in the year 1993-1994, it is alleged that he increased salaries and other benefits to certain employees/salesmen without obtaining administrative permission from the competent authority, which resulted in initiating the enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and on the basis of the enquiry report, the second respondent passed an order dated 28.03.2001 under Section 87 of the Act holding that the petitioner caused loss to the Bank by paying salaries to certain employees without obtaining administrative sanction. Subsequently, the second respondent passed surcharge proceedings in Thava.No.2 of 2000 dated 28.03.2001 against the petitioner. Challenging the same, she filed an appeal in C.M.A.C.S.No.69 of 2002, before the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Tribunal, Kanyakumari, on various grounds. However, the appellate Court also confirmed the order of the second respondent in Thava.No.2 of 2000 dated 28.03.2001. As against the concurrent findings, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner specifically assail the orders impugned in this Civil Revision Petition on the ground that as per the proviso to Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the enquiry should have been completed within six months from the date of initiation. However, in the case on hand, the enquiry was commenced on 20.06.2000 and ought to have been completed on 20.12.2000, but the same was completed on 28.03.2001. Further, if at all, the respondents want to continue the proceedings against the petitioner, they should have obtained permission from the higher authority, which they did not do so. In support of her contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment reported in 2000 (II) CTC 659, Ekambaram Vs. Co-operative Tribunal-cum- District Judge and also raised many other points to quash the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.
4. Since the issue involved in this Civil Revision Petition is a narrow one, when the matter was listed on 29.11.2016, this Court directed learned Special Government Pleader to find out whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioner has been completed within the time prescribed under the Act. Subsequently, the matter was listed on 13.12.2016 and on that day, at the request of the respondents, it was adjourned and the matter was listed once again on 23.12.2016. When the matter was listed today, i.e.09.01.2017, however, there was no representation on behalf of the respondents. The matter has been pending for a decade without adjudication and therefore, this Court thought it fit to proceed with the matter on the basis of the materials available before this Court.
5. I find much force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In this connection, it is apt to refer to the proviso to Section 87 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, for deciding the issue in question, which is usefully extracted below:- ?provided that no action shall be commenced under this sub-section after the expiry of seven years from the date of any act or omission referred to in this sub-section:
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.?
6. In the present case, admittedly, show cause notice was issued on 20.06.2000 and the enquiry should have been completed on 20.12.2000, but the proceedings was completed only on 28.03.2001. No where in the record or in the judgment, it is mentioned that permission has been sought for to extend the time for completion of the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, it has to be construed that no such extension was sought for by the respondents. The judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner would indicate the fact that obtaining permission under Section 87 is mandatory and the proviso also stated that the action ?shall be? completed within a period of six months and if it exceeds beyond the period of six months, there must be an extension from the higher authority. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the respondents have not obtained permission from the higher authority and therefore, the action of the respondents has to be held as non-est in the eye of law.
7. In the light of the above factual position, the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition is set aside and this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Special Officer, Co-operative Sub-Registrar, Arumanai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited, Y-47, Arumanai, Arumanai Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Thuckalay, Thucklay Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.