Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4567 (MAD)

G. Lakshmi v. The Deputy Registrar

2008-12-08

M.JAICHANDREN

body2008
Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order, dated 31. 2003, dismissing the petitioner from service and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service. 3. The petitioner has stated that she was employed in A-1382, Virudhunagar District Consumer Wholesale Co-operative Stores, as a sales woman, at the Fair Price Shop at Virdhunagar. While so, she was served with a charge memo, dated 26. 2002, stating that there was a deficiency of four kilos of sugar and a Bill for 18 kilos of rice had been forged and that the petitioner had not remitted the daily collection to the Treasury. Another charge had been levelled against the petitioner by the proceedings, dated 17. 2001, stating that the petitioner had caused monetary loss to the tune of Rs.14,613.36 due to shortage of stocks of sugar in the fair price shop. In spite of a detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner, enquiry proceedings were held, with regard to the allegations levelled against the petitioner, without following the principles of natural justice. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth her case during the enquiry proceedings. Further, copies of the enquiry report and the other relevant documents were not given to the petitioner, in spite of her requests. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order of the respondent has been issued without following the principles of natural justice. It has been contended that the non-furnishing of the report of the enquiry officer to the petitioner vitiates the entire proceedings and therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent is arbitrary, illegal and void. Further, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the impugned proceedings, dated 31. 2003, has been passed by the respondent in his capacity as the Special Officer of the A-1382, Virdhunagar District Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited, Virudhunagar, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court made in K. Marappan Vs. 2003, has been passed by the respondent in his capacity as the Special Officer of the A-1382, Virdhunagar District Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited, Virudhunagar, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court made in K. Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal ( 2006(4) CTC 689 ). 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been in a position to show that a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the proceedings of the respondent, dated 31. 2003, is maintainable, in spite of the decision of this Court cited supra. In such circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed, as not maintainable, in view of the decision of this Court, made in K. Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal ( 2006(4) CTC 689 ). However, it goes without saying that it is open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order of the respondent, if so advised, in the manner known to law. No costs.