DHAKSHINAMOORTHY Vs. MANAGEMENT KANCHEEPURAM CENTRAL COOPERATIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated August 22, 1990 in W. P. No. 7878 of 1987, whereunder the learned Judge by issuing a Writ of Certiorari set aside the order of the Second respondent herein dated August 1, 1986 in T. S. E. Case No. 1/80 rendered in exercise of his powers as the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The appellant was working as an Inspector in the services of the first respondent-Bank. A charge memo came to be issued on the basis of certain irregularities said to have been committed by him. Since the explanation offered was found to be not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was ordered to be conducted and the Administrative Officer of the Bank conducted the domestic enquiry. On the completion of the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding all the charges proved against the appellant. A second show cause notice was also issued giving an opportunity to the appellant to show cause against the penalty proposed and thereupon by an order dated April 30, 1979, the services of the appellant came to be terminated and he was dismissed from service.

(2.) AGGRIEVED, the appellant filed an appeal before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The said appellate Authority entertained and disposed of the appeal by his order dated April 15, 1980, confirming the order of the first respondent Management. Thereupon, the appellant has chosen to file an appeal under Subsection (2) of Section 41 of the Act. The appellant also appears to have filed an application for condoning the delay of 11 months and 24 days in filing the appeal before the said authority in view of the objection raised by the Office of the Second respondent. The application was opposed by the Management and thereupon, the Appellate Authority condoned the delay in preferring the appeal and directed the posting of the appeal for hearing on merits. The 1st respondent-Management raised a preliminary objection, contending that the appeal before the second respondent was not maintainable. The appellate Authority, by an order dated May 20, 1982 held that the second respondent had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

(3.) THE said order was challenged by the first respondent Management in W. P. N. o. 4845 of 1982. In the said Writ Petition it was contended before this Court that the Appellate Authority concerned was not duly constituted, and therefore, he has no right to entertain and hear the appeal. It was also contended that no appeal could be maintained under Sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Act after the orders of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, which itself was passed on an appeal in terms of the bye-laws of the Society governing the conditions of service of the appellant. The learned Judge, by an order dated December 23, 1983, rejected the ground pertaining to the constitution of the authority relying upon a statutory notification referred to therein. As far as the question relating to the maintainability of the appeal, it was observed that the question as to whether the appellant was disabled from filing an appeal under the Act after having filed earlier an appeal before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies can be urged before the Appellate Authority and it is for the parties to convince the Appellate Authority about the correctness of the respective stand in this regard. Thereupon, the appeal was heard and the Appellate Authority, by the impugned order dated August 1, 1986, not only held that the appeal was maintainable but also came to the conclusion that the charges against the appellant have not been properly proved in the domestic enquiry and that there had been violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of termination of the appellant.