A KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. COMMON CADRE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner, while working as a Secretary of the Marakkanam Primary Agricultural Cooperative bank, was imposed with a punishment of dismissal by the second respondent. It was against the order of the second respondent, the petitioner has filed a revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (for brevity, "the Act"). While the revision was pending, the Board of Directors of the second respondent/Bank had reconsidered the issue by constituting a Sub-Committee and the Sub-Committee has filed a report in favour of the petitioner. Based on the report of the Sub-Committee, the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner came to be recalled by the Board on 9.2.2002 and thereafter, the petitioner joined duty on 9.2.2002. However, the revisional authority, before whom the revision was pending under Section 153 of the Act, instead of dismissing the revision by virtue of the order passed by the Board, has passed an order on 14.8.2002 confirming the dismissal of the petitioner.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the revisional authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.35617 of 2002 and that writ petition came to be allowed by this Court on 1.4.2004 setting aside the order of the revisional authority. The second respondent has filed a writ appeal against the said order in W.A.No.2628 of 2004 and a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 16.12.2006, while confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, has however authorised the competent common cadre authority, namely the first respondent, to pass orders in accordance with law, after notice and hearing the petitioner. The operative portion of the judgment of the Division Bench is as follows:

(3.) ON the face of it, when it is clear, as it is seen in the Division Bench judgment, that the petitioner was reinstated on 9.2.2002 as per the recommendation of the Board of Directors by recalling the earlier order of dismissal, the revisional authority, under Section 153 of the Act, in all fairness should have dismissed the revision as infructuous. ON the other hand, the revisional authority has confirmed the original order of dismissal and that came to be set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The Division Bench, while construing the issue, has made it very clear that after reinstatement of the petitioner on 9.2.2002, there was no occasion for the revisional authority to pass any order on merits and it was in that view of the matter, the Division Bench has confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the observation made by the Division Bench permitting the first respondent to pass order in accordance with law is not for the purpose of imposing the punishment of withholding the salary from 2002 to 2007 and it is only to the effect that in case it is found that the petitioner has committed grave illegality, it is for the first respondent to take appropriate action by framing charges and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench has no meaning.