S. KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. SPECIAL OFFICER, THANJAVUR,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent in RC. No. Nil dated 14.12.2001 appointing the fifth respondent as the Secretary of the Primary Agricultural Co -operative Bank, Pulavankadu.

(2.) The petitioner is now working as the Secretary of the aforementioned Bank. The fifth respondent is the former Secretary. As he acted against the interest of the Bank, proceedings were initiated against him under Sec. 87 of the Act. The surcharge proceedings against him ended on 26.9.1997 holding that the fifth respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,78,764.34. The fifth respondent had not filed any appeal against the said award. By reason of the questionable conduct of the fifth respondent, criminal proceedings were initiated against him in Crime No.7 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu and several witnesses have been examined. The then President of the Bank also framed charges on several actions of misappropriations and other charges. A charge memo was issued to him on 20.1.1990 and after a domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report finding the fifth respondent guilty. The President of the Bank issued notice in the Disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the Domestic Enquiry and after enquiry by order dated 28.12.1998, the fifth respondent was dismissed from service. The petitioner was appointed as Secretary in charge of the Bank and he has been working as the Secretary from 21.08.1995. He has also earned subsequent increments and has also been confirmed in the post. He would further state that he has been made a permanent Secretary of the Bank as per Resolution No.7, dated 29.6.2000. The petitioner states that it is understood that the fifth respondent had filed a representation to the Board on 13.2.1999 and the impugned orders reinstating the fifth respondent had been passed, according to the petitioner is an arbitrary and illegal manner. The petitioner further states that the fifth respondent had acted adverse to the interest of the Bank and the criminal case is pending against him in which several witnesses have been examined. Neither the Board nor the first respondent has any power to review the order of dismissal and hence the writ petition.

(3.) In the counter filed by the first respondent/Special Officer, it is contended that the surcharge proceedings were initiated not only against the 5th respondent but also other paid servants of the Society. But it is admitted that the fifth respondent had not filed any appeal against the said order and also that the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Orathanadu, was pending against the fifth respondent. But the order of the dismissal was passed by the President who has no power to pass an order of dismissal against the Secretary. An appeal was filed by the fifth respondent before the then existing Board and as a result of the Special Officer having taken over the functions of the Board under Ss. 88 and 89 of the Tamil Nadu Co -operative Societies Act, he had considered the appeal of the fifth respondent. Resolution No.1 dated 14.12.2001 was passed by him in the capacity of the Special Officer to reinstate the fifth respondent as Secretary and to place the petitioner as Assistant Secretary in his original post as per the cadre strength of the Society. The Appeal was allowed with the result setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the President. The order was passed in exercise of the power conferred under Sec. 88(3) of the Act after duly considering the interest of the Society and the appeal submitted by the fifth respondent. The petitioner was relieved from the post of Secretary on 14.12.2001 and the fifth respondent has joined the post as Secretary on the same date.