S RAMADEVI Vs. DIRECTOR OF SUGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Chief Accounts Officer by the Director of Sugars and she worked there for quite some time. Thereafter, she was deputed as Chief Accounts Officer to the Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., the second respondent herein. During that period, it is stated that she caused loss to the tune of Rs. 12,512/- by purchasing excess quantity of uniforms. This was found out during audit. Based on the same, on the direction of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the second respondent by his proceedings in Lr. No. 4353/2003-F2, dated 10.12.2003, directed recovery of the said amount from the salary of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Director of Sugars viz., the first respondent herein. The said appeal was rejected by the first respondent. As against the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 29225 of 2003 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority viz., the first respondent was set aside and the matter was remitted to the first respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter, the first respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 16640/Th.Ma.Aa1/2003 dated 25.02.2004, rejected the appeal. As against the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition. In this writ petition, it is mainly contended that the petitioner is not responsible for the loss said to have been sustained by the second respondent Society. In this regard, a show cause notice was also issued by the second respondent, for which, the petitioner submitted an explanation denying her liability. Rejecting the same, the second respondent issued orders for recovery of the said amount from the salary of the petitioner.

(2.) It is contended by the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that when the petitioner denied the liability, there should have been a reference made under Section 87 of the Cooperative Societies Act to the Competent Authority and the said dispute should have been resolved. Without doing so, the second respondent directly passed the order which is wholly without jurisdiction, it is contended. The Learned Counsel would further point out that the first respondent without following the statutory provisions had passed the impugned order which is not sustainable in law.

(3.) The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that as per Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, there should be a By-law which may contain the provision for recovery of any amount due from any employee. But in the by-law of the second respondent Society, there is no provision empowering the second respondent without reference to Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The Learned Counsel would further submit that the order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, directing the second respondent to recover the amount is wholly without jurisdiction. For all these reasons, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would pray for setting aside of the impugned order.