SPECIAL OFFICER Vs. C POONGODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ appeals are preferred against the order passed by the learned single judge making the interim stay absolute while dismissing the petition to vacate the interim order.

(2.) WHILE the writ petitioners were working as cashier and Secretary of the second respondent-society, they were placed under suspension in and by the order, dated August 12, 2004. The same were challenged by the writ petitioners. The learned Judge granted interim orders staying the said orders of suspension. The appellant filed petitions to vacate the said interim orders. While considering these petitions, the learned Judge in the order, dated September 22, 2004, made the interim orders absolute and dismissed the petitions to vacate the interim orders. Aggrieved against the same, the above writ appeals are preferred.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the appellant-co- operative bank submitted that in so far as the requirements as contemplated under Section 76 of the Tamil Nadu co-operative Societies Act, 1983, hereinafter called "the Act", are concerned, the same had been complied with and so the learned Judge is not correct in making the stay absolute especially suspension orders were passed on serious charges. He also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench delivered in w. A. Nos. 1209 and 1210 of 2004, dated April 6, 2004 to support his submission to sustain the impugned orders of suspension. According to him, the orders of suspension are with effect from August 12, 2004 F. N. , as mentioned in the orders and it will be in effect pending enquiry. Since both the requirements as contemplated under Section 76 of the Act are complied with, the learned Judge should not have made the stay absolute.