This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned communication of the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. 13996/ 2004-PACB-2 dated 29.12.2004.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were working in the 2nd respondent Bank. Based on the 100% verification, the 4th respondent submitted his report and so enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act was ordered. According to the petitioners, simultaneously the petitioners were arrested. Subsequently, the 1st respondent issued the impugned order dated 29.12.2004 directing the 4th respondent to conduct the enquiry for the alleged bogus loan amounts and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the cooperative employees. Based on the said order, the 2nd respondent suspended the petitioners 1 and 2. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed. According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent has suspended them and therefore they have challenged the impugned communication issued by the 1st respondent.
3. Heard the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the material available on record.
4. It is seen that the said communication issued by the 1st respondent was addressed to the 4th respondent Society. The petitioners have stated that the said notice has been issued by the 1st respondent, based on some irregularities, which were found at the time of inspection. Though the said report is stated to have been enclosed along with the impugned communication dated 29.12.2004, the report has not been enclosed in the type set of papers before this Court. On perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the same is only an instruction to the Special Officer, to take necessary action against those who were involved in the said irregularities, on the basis of the report. Therefore, this Court is of the view that challenge of the said impugned communication, in this writ petition is unsustainable. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the individual notice, it is open to them to agitate before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. Therefore, the petitioners have no basis to challenge the said impugned communication. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners is liable to be rejected.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
25.07.2017 Index: Yes/ No avr To
1. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Tiruvannamalai Circle Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Special Officer Mallavadi Primary Agrl.
Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mallavadi, Tiruvannamalai District.
3. The Inspector of Police CCIW, Vengikkalpudur, Tiruvannamalai District.
4. The Enquiry Officer/Coop. Sub Registrar (Field Officer) Chengam Circle, Office of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruvannamalai D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.
avr W.P. No. 29422 of 2005 and W.M.P No. 32231 of 2005 25.07.2017