Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.121/2010/,, dated 25.08.2010 and the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.10699/2010 r.X., dated 01.03.2011, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner to the post of Branch Manager from the date on which her immediate junior was promoted.
The petitioner was employed as Branch Manager of Tuticorin Central Co- operative Bank. One Murugan was engaged by the Bank as a jewel appraiser. It appears that the said Murugan was not discharging his duties property. Therefore, the petitioner dismissed him from service and appointed one Mariappan in his place that let to the initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner. A charge memo dated 29.10.2010 was issued. Enquiry was conducted. The charges were found to be proved. After following the usual formalities, the second respondent passed the order dated 25.08.2010 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing revision petition under Section 153 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 before the Joint Registrar. The Joint Registrar also dismissed the revision petition by order dated 01.03.2011. Both the orders are assailed in this writ petition.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Co-operative Bank and also the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner pointed out that the writ petitioner acted in good faith and out of under b o n a fid e consideration and it cannot be questioned. The fourth respondent Murugan was not a desirable person and it is http://www.judis.nic.in borne out by certain subsequent events also. His specific allegation is that the said 3 Murugan was re-appointed and again dismissed from service by the competent authority. The petitioner had only taken a strong action keeping in mind the interest of the bank and that there was a m al a fid e intention in initiation of the disciplinary action against the petitioner. On account of the issuance of the charge memo, her promotional opportunities were put on hold. He would allege that only to frustrate her promotional opportunities, the present action came to be taken.
4.While this Court was not for a moment suspect the bonafideness of the petitioner, what has to be seen is whether the petitioner was possessed of the authority to terminate the jewel appraiser from his post. There can be no doubt on this score. The petitioner was only a Branch Manager. She had no power either to appoint a jewel appraiser or to dismiss him from the post. In this case, in fact, the explanation given by the petitioner herself goes to show that the petitioner did not have the authority. Though there are so many charges set out in the charge memo, the sum and substance revolves around the dismissal of Murugan without authority. Thus, the charge in this case has been proved beyond even a reasonable doubt. When the charge framed against the petitioner has been proved, the only question is proportionality of punishment. The punishment imposed on the petitioner was only stoppage of increment, that too, for a period of one year and that too, without any cumulative effect. It cannot be said to be harsh or even a major punishment. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 G . R . S WAMI N AT H A N , J .
rj2
5.In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
1 2.1 2.2 0 1 8 Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rj2 To
1.The Joint Registrar of Coopertive Society, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
2.The Special Officer, Thoothukudi Central Cooperative Bank, Thoothukudi.
W. P(MD) N o. 6 9 4 4 o f 2 0 1 1 http://www.judis.nic.in