L PALANIAPPAN Vs. ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR MARKETING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CHEPAULK MADRAS 5

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent made in RC.No.153745 of 1990/SF-1 dated 21.2.1991 and RC.No.253098 of 1989 SF-a dated 26.4.1990 and that of the second respondent made in RC.No.305 of 1982 (G) dated 11.4.1986 and Rc.No.305 of 1982 (G)-A dated 30.9.1985 and quash the same.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Supervisor in the Co-operative Central Bank Kumbakonam and was posted at Kolapadu Village of Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, Thanjavur District. THEreafter he was transferred to the Thiruvaimoor Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society as the Secretary and as on the date of filing of the writ petition he was working as Secretary. Aymoor Primary Co-operative Land Department Bank, Aymoor. Vedaranyam Taluk, Thanjavur District. According to the petitioner, while he was working as Secretary in the Thiruvaimoor Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, on the direction of the then Minister 'for Co-operation, the Deputy Secretary, Co-operative Department of Government of Tamil Nadu by letter dated 12.12.1981 directed for an enquiry to be conducted into the affairs of Thiruvaimoor Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society. THE Special Officer of the Kumbakonam Central Co-operative Bank issued a memo dated 20.1.82 to the Marketing Officer to conduct the enquiry and submit his report within three days. On 25.2.82 the report of the enquiry officer was submitted to the Special Officer, Kumbakonam Central! Co-operative Bank. THE second respondent by proceedings dated 14.8.1982 placed the petitioner under suspension. THE charges were framed on 25.9.1982. THE petitioner has submitted his explanation on 19.10.1982. After a period of three years, the Enquiry Officer conducted the domestic enquiry and submitted his report on 10.6 1985. On the basis of the enquiry report, the second respondent awarded a, punishment of stoppage of increment for the period of three years with cumulative effect by proceedings dated 30.9.1985. Aggrieved, by the above order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of, the second respondent Bank under by-law 13C of the Central Bank. According to the petitioner, the Special Officer of the Kumbakonam Central Co-operative Bank without going into the merits of the case, rejected the appeal by order dated 11.4.1986. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred a revision petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 before the first respondent. THE first respondent confirmed the order of the second respondent dated 30.9.1985 imposing the punishment for the charges held proved in the domestic enquiry. By the very same order, the first respondent directed for a fresh enquiry in respect of charges held not proved in the domestic enquiry. THE petitioner has filed a review petition before the first respondent and the same has been rejected by order dated 21.2.1991. Questioning the above orders, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

(3.) IN Umacharan v. State ofMadhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915 the Supreme Court has observed that the reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. Reasons being harbinger between the mind of the maker of the order to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at, it excludes the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision or conclusion. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision reached.