V.THIRULOKACHANDER Vs. E.KANNAN, SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt petition has been filed by Mr.V.Thirulokachander, who was functioning as the Secretary of the first respondent-Government Telecommunication Employees' Co-operative Society Limited, complaining about the deliberate disobedience and frequent violation of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3657 of 2005 dated 30.9.2011 by the respondents.

(2.) The issue raised in Writ Petition No.3657 of 2005 is straight and simple, hence, the same is briefly stated as follows. When the petitioner was working as Secretary of the respondent-Society, he was placed under suspension by order dated 19.1.2005 passed by the Administrator-I of the respondent-Society, since the petitioner suffered conviction in Sessions Case No.193 of 2003 on the file the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai for a criminal case registered under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Although the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, by its judgment dated 25.9.2003, the trial Court suspended the same enabling the petitioner to file appeal. The petitioner, having filed Criminal Appeal No.1546 of 2003, obtained suspension of sentence and bail by order dated 20.10.2003 in Crl.M.P.No.9734 of 2003 in Criminal Appeal No.1546 of 2003. But the contemnors did not reinstate the petitioner on the ground that the matter was pending. However, this Court, by its judgment dated 27.4.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.1546 of 2003, ultimately set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. The said judgment of this Court became final, as no appeal was filed by the co-operative society as against the said order, hence, it was pleaded that the order of suspension passed on the basis of the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court also stood obliterated. However, when the Administrator, who passed the order of suspension, had not revoked the suspension even on the representation made by the petitioner, the contemnors refused to revoke the suspension to reinstate the petitioner in service, which compelled the petitioner to file the W.P.No.3657 of 2005 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 30.9.2011, enunciating the legal position that the order of suspension passed on the basis of the conviction and sentence that were subsequently set aside by the appellate Court, quashed the same with a further direction to the contemnors to reinstate the petitioner in service, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Aggrieved by the order passed by this Court in the writ petition dated 30.9.2011, the contemnors preferred Writ Appeal No.2274 of 2011. The Hon'ble First Bench of this Court, finding no merits in the writ appeal, while dismissing the same, confirmed the order passed by this Court in its order dated 5.1.2012. Again the contemnors went in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing S.L.P.(Civil) No.17929 of 2012 as against the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.2274 of 2011. In the meanwhile, the writ petitioner, complaining non-implementation of the Court's order dated 30.9.2011, filed the contempt petition to initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnors. However, the contemnors sought for time on the ground that the special leave petition filed by them was pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore prayed this Court to adjourn the matter to some other date. Accepting the request, this Court adjourned the matter. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the special leave petition, by its order dated 17.8.2012, giving a quietus to the matter to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Secretary. In the meanwhile, since the contempt petition was filed for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3657 of 2005, this Court did not proceed with the contempt petition, in view of the pendency of the writ appeal and the special leave petition. However, after the dismissal of the special leave petition on 17.8.2012, when the contempt petition was taken on board on 27.8.2012, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the second contemnor-Mr.S.Veeraraghavan, the President of Government Telecommunication Employees' Co-operative Society Limited, made a statement before this Court that the petitioner could join duty. Accepting the submission of the learned senior counsel, the matter was adjourned to 31.8.2012. Again when the matter was taken up on 31.8.2012, Mr.L.N.Pragasham, learned counsel for the petitioner represented before this Court that the petitioner was not given any work on 28.8.2012. However, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the second contemnor again stated that though the petitioner was allowed to join duty as Secretary, the respondents-contemnors would entrust his part of the official work. Unfortunately, when the matter was listed again on 20.2.2013, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before this Court that the second respondent had wrongly posted the petitioner as Secretary No.II, instead of Secretary No.I, because the second respondent had deliberately posted a junior of the petitioner viz., the first respondent, who was working from the year 2001, as the Secretary in-charge. On this basis, it was complained before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by this Court in the writ petition, confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench and the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) No.17929 of 2012 dated 17.8.2012, had not only been completely breached, but the undertaking given by the learned senior counsel for the second respondent also had been breached. Adding further, Mr.L.N.Pragasham vehemently argued that by virtue of Section 51 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, there shall be only one Chief Executive in every multi-State co-operative society, wrongly by taking the law in their own hands, the respondents, without complying with the order of the High Court, the order of the Supreme Court and even the provisions of Section 51 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, mischievously increased the number of posts of Secretaries and thus committed deliberate contempt, therefore, they should be punished suitably, as the contemnors had no regard or respect to the orders of this Court or law.

(3.) At this stage, Mr.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the contemnors, placing three submissions, requested this Court not to proceed with the contempt proceedings, since the order of the Court has been duly complied with by posting the petitioner as the Secretary No.II. Since the issue before this Court, he pleaded, is only in respect of revocation of the suspension order by posting him as the Secretary, now after the suspension order was set aside by this Court, the petitioner was posted as one of the Secretaries, therefore, the Board of Directors alone have got power to appoint the Secretaries of the respondent-Co-operative society in the order of merit like Secretary No.I, Secretary No.II, Secretary No.III and Secretary No.IV. Hence, this Court cannot find fault with the appointment of the petitioner as Secretary No.II, as such, the matter has to be left open to the Board of Directors, he pleaded. In any event, when the entire backwages have been paid and the petitioner also has been appointed in the post of Secretary No.II, no contempt subsists as alleged by the petitioner. He has further contended that, as alleged by the petitioner, there was no violation of Section 51 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act. In support of the above submission, by relying upon the Board's resolution dated 21.10.2011 to increase the number of posts of Executives including Secretaries, the learned senior counsel stated that when the Board of Directors had taken a decision to appoint four Secretaries after considering the volume of transactions, work load and their corresponding volume of work, it is not open to the petitioner to find fault with the powers exercised by the Board of Directors for increasing the cadre strength of Secretaries and as such, when the bye-law No.33 empowers the Board of Management to appoint one amongst the Secretaries as the Chief Executive of the society to be a whole-time employee of the society, appointing the petitioner as Secretary No.II cannot be found fault with. Finally, while resting his argument, Mr.V.Prakash, learned senior counsel submitted that when the arrears of salary payable to the petitioner as on 27.8.2012 had been paid and since this Court had set aside the suspension order and the petitioner was also posted as the Secretary No.II on 29.3.2012, the subsequent suspension made on the same date relating to some other charges cannot be viewed seriously against the President, as though the order passed by this Court has been violated, for the reason that when the order of suspension dated 29.3.2012 is based on entirely different set of facts and different charges, the said suspension order cannot be termed as an act of disobedience of the order passed by this Court, muchless an act of contempt as alleged by the petitioner. However, in any event, now that the petitioner has been reinstated in service as Secretary No.II by virtue of an amendment made to the bye-laws of the society increasing the strength of the Secretaries, therefore, not posting the petitioner as Secretary No.I is not a violation of this Court's order, since it is purely a part of privilege of the Board, accordingly, he pleaded for dismissal of this contempt petition.