S. VEERAPUTHIRAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the first respondent made in G.O.(2-D)No.108, Co-operative Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 31.10.2007 and consequently seeking for a direction to the respondents to restore him as Manager with all service and monetary benefits.

(2.) IN the impugned order, the first respondent had confirmed the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner demoting him from the post of Manager to post of Assistant Manager.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had raised various grounds in this writ petition, in view of the subsequent developments taken place in the surcharge proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the respondents are bound to drop the punishment imposed on the petitioner and consequently pay the subsistence allowance and all other retirement benefits, in view of the fact that the petitioner had also retired from service and the respondents have permitted him to retire from service. In support of such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed an order passed in C.M.A.(CS)No.3 of 2003 dated 25.04.2011, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar. The said judgment was passed by the Principal District Court in the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein against the award passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Srivilliputhur, dated 19.08.2002 under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The learned Principal District Judge after elaborately discussing the facts and circumstances of the case, has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, by holding that the first respondent therein, namely, the Special Officer had failed to make out a case as to how the petitioner herein failed to discharge his duties and to what extent he was negligent in discharging his duties by which he had caused loss of goods worth Rs.7,17,312.80 in terms of money value. The learned Judge further observed that without knowledge of the Special Officer and Secretary who are monitoring authorities, the petitioner alone would not have caused loss of goods in terms of money value. By observing so, the learned Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, by setting aside the award passed against him, wherein the petitioner was directed to pay the said sum of Rs.7,17,312.80 under the surcharge proceedings. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the finding rendered by the appellate Court in the surcharge proceedings, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the consequent punishment imposed on him cannot withstand and therefore, the impugned order challenged in this writ petition has to be set aside.