Judgment : ORDER OF REFERENCE An interesting question as to whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of a Co-operative Society, governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 and the Bye-Law of the Society could be continued even after his retirement has troubled this Court on several occasions, as it does in this case also. 2. A Division Bench of this Court in The Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. G. Manoharan, reported in 2010 (2) CTC 234 , examined the said question in extenso. The Division bench ultimately held that though it is the general principle, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that after the retirement of an employee, disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued unless there is an enabling provision and though it is true that there is no express provision in the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, enabling continuance of such disciplinary proceedings beyond the date of retirement, still the Division Bench found that Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 impliedly enables such course to continue the disciplinary proceedings even after the retirement of the employee. The Division Bench in G. Manoharan's case held as follows in Paragraph 33. “33. From the records produced in this case, the following facts are obvious: (a) The activities of the first respondent had caused a great deal of consternation among the authorities and they were forced to transfer him from the place where, according to them, he was causing a lot of damage. (b) The disciplinary proceedings had been actually initiated before his age of superannuation, since the first charge memo is dated 6.6.2013, whereas his age of superannuation is 31.6.2013. (c) He had also given a reply to the charge memo dated 6.6.2003, but had not chosen to reveal the fact of the issuance of this earlier charge memo in his writ affidavit. (d) No orders had been passed permitting him to retire; on the contrary, he was suspended on the eve of his attaining the age of superannuation. (e) The Supreme Court has held that even if a person had retired, if it is proved that he had caused loss to the establishment, then proceedings can be initiated to recover the amount of loss from him. (e) The Supreme Court has held that even if a person had retired, if it is proved that he had caused loss to the establishment, then proceedings can be initiated to recover the amount of loss from him. (f) Even if a person has attained the age of superannuation, it is possible to dismiss him, in which event, he will not be entitled to his terminal dues – vide 2007 (9) SCC 15 (supra). (G) In any event, Section 87 of the Act gives the power to proceed against even a past employee for recovery and restoration of the financial loss caused to the Society.” 3. The very same question subsequently came up for consideration before yet another Division Bench in M.K.S. Balasubramanian v. The Kancheepuram Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., reported in 2010 (2) CTC 569 . But, this Division Bench had no occasion to refer to G. Manoharan's case. This Division Bench took diametrically an opposite view holding that after the retirement of an employee of a co-operative society, disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued. The Division Bench further held that at the most the co-operative society would be at liberty to initiate only surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, after the retirement of the employee. 4. Subsequently, once again the very same question came-up for consideration before yet another Division Bench in P. Thangavel vs. The Chairman, Common Cadre Committee/Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, reported in 2012 (3) CTC 488 . Of course, fortunately, before the said Division Bench, both G. Manoharan's case as well as M.K.S. Balasubramanian's case, were cited. While referring G. Manoharan's case, the Division bench observed that the said case was all about the surcharge proceedings to be initiated under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and the said case had nothing to do with a disciplinary proceedings to be continued after retirement. This is evident from the following observation in Paragraph 8 of the judgment. “8. We have gone through the Judgment in G. Manoharan's case. That was a case where Surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act was questioned.” I regret to say that the above observation of the Division Bench is factually incorrect, since G. Manoharan's case is only in respect of a disciplinary proceeding. “8. We have gone through the Judgment in G. Manoharan's case. That was a case where Surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act was questioned.” I regret to say that the above observation of the Division Bench is factually incorrect, since G. Manoharan's case is only in respect of a disciplinary proceeding. In paragraph 2 of G. Manoharan's case, it is observed as follows: “2. In this case, the first respondent, in charge of the affairs of a Co-operative Bank is charged with acts of grave misconduct, including causing huge financial loss to the Bank and has challenged the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that he has attained the age of superannuation. He must face the proceedings and establish that he has not caused such loss. He cannot get away merely because he has reached a certain age. He must prove that he is innocent of causing loss to the Co-operative Society.” 5. From the above observation, it is crystal clear that G. Manoharan's case is not in respect of a surcharge proceedings initiated under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 as has been observed in P. Thangavel's case. The core question which was decided in G. Manoharan's case was as to whether disciplinary proceeding initiated against an employee of a co-operative society could be continued after his retirement. But, in P. Thangavel's case, the Division Bench held in paragraph 9 that facts of the said case are different as it is a case relating to surcharge proceedings. While referring to M.K.S. Balasubramaniam's case, the Division Bench has approved the view taken by the Division Bench so as to hold that disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued after retirement of an employee of a co-operative Society, Thus, the judgment in P. Thangavel's case is actually in tune with the judgment in M.K.S. Balasubramaniam's case. Both the cases are in conflict with G. Manoharan's case. 6. Very recently, before yet another Division Bench, the very same question came up for consideration in R. Murugesan vs. Joint Registrar of Co-op.Societies, reported in (2014) 4 MLJ 513 . In that case, M.K.S. Balasubramaniam's case, P. Thangavel's case and also G. Manohran's case were cited. This Division Bench, in paragraph 6 of its judgment, has held that in M.K.S. Balasubramaniam's case, the Division Bench has distinguished G.Manoharan's case. In that case, M.K.S. Balasubramaniam's case, P. Thangavel's case and also G. Manohran's case were cited. This Division Bench, in paragraph 6 of its judgment, has held that in M.K.S. Balasubramaniam's case, the Division Bench has distinguished G.Manoharan's case. The Division Bench further extracted paragraph Nos.9 to 12 of the judgment in M.K.S. Balasubramaniam's case and has followed the view taken in the said case so as to hold that disciplinary proceedings cannot be continued after the retirement of an employee of a cooperative society. Thus, atleast, three division Benches in R. Murgesan's case, M.K.S. Balasubramaninm's case and P. Thangavel's case have held the view that disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of a co-operative society, governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, cannot be continued after his retirement. They have also said that however, there is no bar either to continue or not the surcharge proceedings initiated under Section 87 of the Act. 7. But, the law laid down in G. Manoharan's case wherein the Division Bench has held the view that so far as an employee of a co-operative Society, governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act is concerned, there is implied authority under Section 87 of the Act by which the disciplinary proceedings initiated could be continued even after the retirement of the employee. This judgment, of course, has been referred to in P. Thangavel's case. There, the Division Bench, I regret to state, has misunderstood the case as though the challenge in G. Manoharan's case is all about the surcharge proceedings initiated under Section 87 of the Act. 8. Thus, I find that there are conflicting views between these Division Bench judgments which require examination by a Larger Bench so as to have an authoritative pronouncement on the subject as, not in frequently, this question is raised before a number of learned Single Judges. Therefore, I direct the Registry to place the papers before My Lord The Hon'ble Chief Justice to decide to refer the following questions for answering by means of an authoritative pronouncement by a Larger Bench. “1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of a co-operative society, governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, could be continued even after retirement of the said employee? 2. “1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of a co-operative society, governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, could be continued even after retirement of the said employee? 2. Whether Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 could be considered as an enabling provision impliedly empowering the disciplinary authority to continue the disciplinary proceedings even after the retirement of an employee of a co-operative society, governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983?”