S ULAGANATHAN Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of all the parties the writ petitions themselves are taken up for disposal. Since the issue raised in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order. The petitioners are challenging the order of the third respondent dated 8-2-2003 terminating them from service.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P.No. 4680/2003 was appointed as Clerk in Thiruvalankadu Primary Agricultural Coop. Bank Limited, third respondent herein with effect from 25-02-1975 and he was subsequently promoted as Secretary with effect from 18-11-1983. The petitioner in W.P.No.5288/2003 was appointed as Fertilizer Salesman in the third respondent Bank on 01-12-1985 and was discharging his duties as such for the past several years. Due to irregularities in handling of jewels, both the petitioners were initially suspended and disciplinary action was taken. However, after some time, the third respondent closed the enquiry and revoked the suspension order and allowed them to join duty. Meanwhile, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate-No.I, Mayiladuthurai. After trial, the learned Magistrate released the petitioners under sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, by his judgment dated 10-01-2003. Consequent on the judgment of the criminal Court, the Special Officer of the third respondent issued a show cause notice why both of them should not be removed from service in view of disqualification attracted as per Rule 149 (4) of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988 read with By-law No.5 (III) of the third respondent bank. The said order was challenged in a writ proceedings. Ultimately the same was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to submit their explanation to the show cause notice. It is stated that without considering the direction of this Court as well as the explanation offered, the third respondent passed the impugned orders terminating them from service. Questioning the said action, both the petitioners preferred the above writ petitions.

(3.) The third respondent filed a counter affidavit highlighting the involvement of the petitioners in the misappropriation of the bank's fund, the judgment of the Criminal Court which released them under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders' Act and justifying the present action taken against the petitioners.