Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2942 (MAD)

P. Sellappan v. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies

2010-07-19

S.TAMILVANAN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. Both the writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner herein invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. W.P.No.22979 of 2006 has been filed seeking an order in the nature of writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any manner proceeding with the surcharge, disciplinary and criminal actions against the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry reports submitted in three parts under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, without furnishing the same to the petitioner. 3. In W.P.No.42404 of 2006, the petitioner herein has prayed this Court to issue an order in the nature of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned orders of suspension of service of the petitioner passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.130/2006/A1, dated 13.09.2006 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with back wages and other benefits for the period under suspension. 4. No representation for the petitioner. Heard Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.M.Liagat Ali, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. As per the counter filed by the second respondent, it is seen that the petitioner is working as cashier in Erode Branch of the society and he was suspended for the grave irregularities committed by him, due to which loss to the tune of more than Rs.25 lakhs was incurred by the society. The respondents has stated that grave irregularities have been committed by the petitioner in conducting turmeric auction sale at Erode branch, without following the rules and regulations of the society, which caused heavy loss to the tune of more than Rs.25 lakhs. After due notice and proper opportunity, enquiry was conducted and the copy was also furnished to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the allegation that copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner is not factually correct. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, for receiving the copy of the enquiry report, the petitioner has duly signed, for which acknowledgement is also produced. 7. As per Section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, appeal remedy is available for the petitioner. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, for receiving the copy of the enquiry report, the petitioner has duly signed, for which acknowledgement is also produced. 7. As per Section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, appeal remedy is available for the petitioner. After exhausting the same, revision under Section 153 of the Act is also available, however, without preferring any appeal or revision, it is seen that the petitioner has filed these writ petitions invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Marappan, K vs. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Namakkal, reported in 2006 (4) CTC 689 , wherein it has been categorically held that writ petition filed in a similar case, without availing alternative remedy is not legally maintainable. 9. Similar decisions were rendered by this Court in W.P.Nos.196540 to 19643 of 2006, dated 10.04.2007 and W.P.No.24378 of 2006, dated 18.01.2007 respectively. 10. In view of the decisions rendered by the Honble Full Bench and other learned single Judges, I am of the considered view that the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not legally maintainable and accordingly, the same are liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the authority, by way of appeal or revision. No order as to costs.