JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records of the Impugned Order dated 25.06.2015 in Review Petition Na.Ka.9825/2014 A2 & Review Petition No.24/2014 A2 passed by the 1st Respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner in the post of Sales Man.) 1. The order of termination issued against the writ petitioner, which was confirmed by the Revisional Authority under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, in proceedings dated 25.06.2015 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Salesman on compassionate ground, consequent to the death of his father, who served in the 2nd respondent / Co-operative Society. The petitioner states that one Mr.Sekar and his Son Rajasekar residing in the same village, abused the petitioner and he has given a Police Complaint. When the enquiry was going on in the Kaveripakkam Police Station, the President of the 2nd respondent / Cooperative Society sent a memo on 03.05.2014 and meanwhile, the petitioner states that he agreed to compromise the issues. However, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 07.05.2014. Thereafter, he was transferred to the nearby Village at Athipattu as Salesman. On 15.05.2015, another charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner regarding allegations of deficit of stocks in the 2nd respondent / Co-operative Society. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.05.2014. Not satisfied with the explanation, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the 2nd respondent in proceedings dated 28.05.2014. 3. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who in turn, conducted an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry in a prejudice manner and held that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. Thereafter, the second show cause notice was issued by the management on 16.10.2014 and the petitioner submitted his further objections on 20.10.2014. The 2nd respondent without considering the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner, issued the order of dismissal from service in proceedings dated 31.10.2014. The petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the 1st respondent on 25.11.2014, which was also rejected in order dated 25.06.2016. Thus, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The 2nd respondent without considering the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner, issued the order of dismissal from service in proceedings dated 31.10.2014. The petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the 1st respondent on 25.11.2014, which was also rejected in order dated 25.06.2016. Thus, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The petitioner in person articulated his case by stating that there was no complaint against him and even in respect of the Police complaint, he has made compromise. The stock deficit alleged is also incorrect and he had categorically submitted his explanation, denying the allegations of stock deficit and misappropriation. The enquiry was also not conducted properly and the explanations submitted by the petitioner was not taken into consideration. Thus, the order of dismissal from service is to be set aside. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader relying on the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, objected the said contention by stating that during the inspection of the Field Officer Co-operation, Walaja on 21.07.2010, deficit of Rs.4421.95/- in the levy and non-levy stock was found in Kadapperi Fair Price Shop, for which, the petitioner was the Salesman. For the misappropriation, his annual increment was stopped for one year as mark of punishment. 6. Secondly, while the petitioner was working as Salesman in Kadapperi Fair Price Shop, he was found to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.5188.20 during 100% verification by the flying squad on 11.11.2010. Disciplinary action was taken on him and the charges against him were proved in the domestic enquiry and consequently, he was punished and thereafter, reinstated in service. 7. Third time also, the petitioner has involved in committing offence. He was found to be the habitual offender. Every time, the petitioner has indulged in misappropriation of the levy of stocks intended for the family card holders. The 2nd respondent states that as the President, received many complaints from the general public that the petitioner that he has used filthy language and he had not opened the PDS shops in correct time. He has not properly distributed the Ration commodities to the general public, by which, the PDS movement was affected. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.05.2014. A Charge memo dated 14.07.2014 was issued to the petitioner. He has not properly distributed the Ration commodities to the general public, by which, the PDS movement was affected. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.05.2014. A Charge memo dated 14.07.2014 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 19.07.2015 and an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who in turn, conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the petitioner and based on the documents and evidences on record, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. The allegations of the misappropriation of the funds of the Co-operative Society to the tune of Rs.22,529.75/- was proved against the writ petitioner. Therefore, the 2nd respondent / Management issued the order of dismissal. The Revision Petition filed under Section 153 of the Act was also rejected. 8. The 2nd respondent has stated that the petitioner was a habitual offender and on earlier occasions for the similar offence of misappropriation of the funds were dealt with and a lenient view was taken. When it was found that the petitioner was continuously committing the misappropriation, he was placed under suspension and finally during the enquiry, it was found that he has involved in misappropriation of a sum of Rs.22,529.75/-. Thus, the penalty of dismissal from service was issued. That apart, it is contended that the public in general are making several complaints against the writ petitioner as he was not opening the PDS shop in time. 9. The Revisional Authority entertained the Revision under the 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and elaborately considered the documents available on record and also the grounds raised by the petitioner in the Revision Petition. The facts and details regarding the misappropriation were considered by the Revisional Authority. Thus, there is no scope for interfering with the facts recorded by the Original Authority and by the Revisional Authority under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The allegations against the writ petitioner are serious and the misappropriations of the funds are proved against him. Even during the earlier occasions, the allegations of misappropriation were held proved and punishment was imposed and a lenient view was taken. When the petitioner was continuously committing the offence of misappropriation, management took a serious view and imposed the major penalty of dismissal from services. Even during the earlier occasions, the allegations of misappropriation were held proved and punishment was imposed and a lenient view was taken. When the petitioner was continuously committing the offence of misappropriation, management took a serious view and imposed the major penalty of dismissal from services. When it is established that the petitioner is a habitual offender of misappropriation of funds of the Co-operative Society, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed as it cannot be construed as disproportionate. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not established any acceptable grounds for the purpose of assailing the orders impugned and consequently, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.