S CHANDRAMOULI Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been directed against the impugned order passed by the first respondent, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Chennai in Revision Petition Rc.No.3375/08 SF1 dated 06.04.2010, confirming the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner by the second respondent, the Special Officer, Tiruchirappalli Co-operative Building Society, in his proceedings Ref.Nil dated 14.03.2009, to quash the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to pay all the backwages and other monetary benefits.

(2.) Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, attacking the impugned orders of both the respondents, contended that when the petitioner was working as a Secretary in the second respondent-Tiruchirappalli Co-operative Building Society from 2.8.76, he was only a paid officer responsible for the administration of the society subject to the control of the President or, in his absence, the Vice President, besides, the bye-law No.21(i)(a) & (b) specifically states that the Secretary cannot act on his own, but to act subject to the control of the president of the society. Moreover, when the loan application submitted by one Mr.J.Manikandan was approved and released, the Board was dissolved and in that place, the Special Officer, a Government servant, was appointed, resultantly, the said Special Officer was exercising the powers vested in the elected Board of Management. Therefore, when it is absolutely clear and unambiguous that the petitioner, as a Secretary, is under the control of the Special Officer of the society and the Special Officer, in turn, was working under the control of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), any order or direction issued by the Registrar or Special Officer will have to be implemented by the Secretary. Moreover, a circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) dated 18.8.88 clearly mentions the duties of the Co-operative Sub Registrars. One of the duties to be discharged by the Co-operative Sub Registrar is the investigation and scrutiny of the loan applications. While scrutinising the loan application, it is his responsibility to see that the applicant is coming within the income group, that he possesses a clear title to the properties offered for mortgage, that the properties provide adequate security for the loans and that the applicant has the required repaying capacity. Further, the said circular also makes it clear that the Co-operative Sub Registrar should verify the value of the properties offered for mortgage and indicate how he has arrived at that valuation by giving the details thereon. Moreover, he should also inspect the site with the site plan and measure the length and breadth correctly and see whether there are corner stones demarcating the site to avoid conflicting claims by neighbours on either side. Again it mandated the Co-operative Sub Registrar to see that all the columns in the loan applications are correctly filled up and that all the certificates required are furnished while dealing with the loan applications. That apart, to safeguard the funds of the society, utmost care is required in the recommendation of the loan applications. Finally, it also required the Co-operative Sub Registrar to write the report by himself and avoid entrusting work to others, particularly, the employees of the society. When the circular dated 18.8.88 issued by the first respondent-Registrar clearly prescribes the functions and responsibilities of the Co-operative Sub Registrar in the matter of granting housing loan to any applicant, question of making allegation against the petitioner that he has released loans to the members without verifying the level of construction is absolutely unfounded, because, when he was served with the charge memo on 25.6.2005 alleging inter alia that he had released the loan to the members without verifying the level of construction and that the first instalment was paid before the construction reached the level prescribed, are totally untenable and unsustainable, for the reason that he has no power to sanction the loan or order for payment of the instalments. Moreover, when the Co-operative Sub Registrar sent his report that he had inspected the site and was satisfied with the progress of construction and therefore recommended for the release of instalment, the petitioner, being a mere Secretary, cannot cross-check the report sent by the Co-operative Sub Registrar or overwrite the same. Further, when the bye-laws of the society clearly lay down the duties of the Secretary that he is only an executive and nowhere connected with the sanctioning power, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any payment made contrary to the rules and regulations. Moreover, when seven loans were granted to Mr.J.Manikandan, two loans were already discharged and in respect of the remaining five loans remaining unsettled, suits were filed and they were all decreed. Only the execution petitions are pending. Therefore, when the two loans are fully secured and in respect of the other five loans, suits filed by the society had been decreed, there is no question of any loss caused to the second respondent society, as stated by the learned counsel for the second respondent.

(3.) Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while elaborating the conduct of the second respondent in proceeding against the petitioner with mala fide intention, stated that the second respondent, even after placing the petitioner under suspension, has not even paid the subsistence allowance in full. The non-payment of the subsistence allowance also clearly shows the prejudicial mind of the second respondent since, unless the subsistence allowance is paid to the petitioner, he will not be in a position to defend his case properly. Moreover, when repeated representations were made for supply of the relevant documents for prosecuting his defence, the petitioner was not supplied with the crucial documents stating that the documents are with the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, hence, the same could not be supplied. Contending further, it was argued that when the allegation made against the petitioner showed that the petitioner had violated bye-law No.21(1)(b) and 45 to 52 of the bye-laws, since bye-law No.21(1)(b) clearly states that the Secretary can administer the society subject to the control of the President. Similarly, bye-law No.45 also says that the loan application shall be dealt with by the Board of Directors. Again bye-law No.46 states that with the approval of the general body, the Board of Directors shall act in the prescribed manner. Although the Secretary receives the loan application and places it before the Board or the Special Officer, as the case may be, only the Board or the Special Officer should take a final decision to make disbursement under bye-law No.52. Therefore, for the reason that the petitioner, being a Secretary, has to only receive the loan application and place it before the Board of the Special Officer and the final decision for disbursement of the loan should be taken as per bye-law No.52, the said aspect has been completely overlooked by the enquiry officer and also the disciplinary authority. Moreover, when the loan was sanctioned by the Special Officer along with the Sub Registrar, no action was taken against the Special Officer or the Sub Registrar. Only the petitioner alone is singled out and he has been made as a scapegoat. In any event, even this significant aspect has not been properly considered by the disciplinary authority as well as the first respondent. Therefore, it was pleaded that the impugned orders dismissing the petitioner from service even without paying the subsistence allowance in full during the period of suspension is nothing but a clear, mala fide, vindictive attitude of the respondents and, therefore, the same is required to be interfered with.