C LOGESWARAN Vs. SPECIAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against the charge memo of the respondent dated 25.6.2004, on the basis that the respondent has no power to continue the disciplinary proceedings since the petitioner was relieved from service with effect from 30.6.2004 on attainment of the age of superannuation.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as a Secretary of the respondent/ Society, which is a co-operative society, and he was to retire from service on attainment of the age of superannuation on 30.6.2004. It was five days before the date of superannuation the impugned charge memo came to be issued on 25.6.2004, on the basis that he was involved in the issuance of loans in an improper manner to power loom weavers and failed to recover the loans. It was also charged that the petitioner has failed to shift the society to the new building, for which sanction was given in the year 2001. (1) It is the case of the petitioner that the charge memo is motivated and according to him, on 30.6.2004, the petitioner was relieved from service on attaining the age of superannuation without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. THE terminal benefits of the petitioner have been withheld by invoking the power under Rule 149(3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 (for brevity, "the Rules"). It is the case of the petitioner that neither the bye-laws of the society nor the Rules confer power on the respondent to continue the disciplinary proceedings after relieving him from service on attainment of age of superannuation and therefore, the respondent has no power to proceed with the charge memo. (2) THE impugned charge memo is challenged on various grounds, including that as per the bye-laws governing the respondent/society, there is no provision to continue the disciplinary proceedings even after the employee is relieved from service on attainment of age of superannuation; that Rule 149(3) of the Rules has no application, since it cannot be deemed to be an enabling provision enabling the respondent/society to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings; and that even if the rules applicable to the government servants are applicable, unless as per Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules an order is passed retaining the delinquent in service and not allowing him to retire, there is no power to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings.

(3.) ON the other hand, it is the contention of Mr.G.Jermiah, learned counsel for the respondent that the writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the bye-laws and even if the petitioner has got any remedy, the same is not by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.