MUSIRI COOPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD Vs. RANGANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third defendant is the appellant. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed by the first respondent for declaring that the order of the third defendant, dated 10th November, 1979 and the order of the second defendant, dated 29th March, 1980 and also the order of the third defendant, dated 6th May, 1980 are ab initio void, illegal, without jurisdiction and ultra vires and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the said orders.

(2.) THE plaintiff-first respondent was the Secretary of the third defendant-Co-operative Land Development Bank at Musiri, Disciplinary action was taken against the plaintiff and charges were framed against him for certain acts of omission and commission on the part of the plaintiff. The third defendant appointed an Enquiry Officer and on basis of the report dismissed the plaintiff on 10th November, 1979. On appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the second defendant, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Musiri, set aside the order of dismissal, but remitted the matter for disposal de novo. But the third defendant again passed an order dismissal the plaintiff from service. According to the plaintiff the order of the third defendant (1) is ab initio void, (2) is vitiated by violation of the rule of audi alteram partem, (3) is mala fide as no show-cause notice was issued prior to framing of charges, (4) is vitiated as the punishment by the first defendant is without enquiry, (5) is bad as the order was based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, a member of the Musiri Bar, who was appointed by the third defendant and who has not furnished him with details asked for by him. The further contention is that the order of the second defendant is vitiated as no notice or summons was issued by the second defendant and the appeal was disposed of summarily and the order is also bad as the second defendant has no jurisdiction to remit the matter once he is convinced that the order of the third defendant has to be aside. It is in those circumstances that the plaintiff prayed for the reliefs extracted.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendants. The second defendant in his answer contended that the allegation that the second defendant has no jurisdiction to remit the matter is wrong and that the order of remit has been made according to the provision of the by laws of the Land Development Bank and that the suit is bad for want of notice under S. 80, civil Procedure Code, and it is also barred under S. 100 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative societies Act. The first defendant adopts the written statement of the second defendant. The third defendant would deny the allegation of mala fides. He also denied that the Special Officer was exhibiting a hostile attitude towards the plaintiff. He stated that the Enquiry Officer appointed by the third defendant summoned the plaintiff to appear on 7th August, 1979 and on 16th August, 1979, that as he has not appeared, he has proceeded ex parte and that the allegation that no enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer is wrong. The third defendant also denied the allegation that the documents were withheld from the plaintiff and stated that the suit is also bad for want of notice.