CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. M PARTHASARATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent is the Secretary of the appellant-Bank, having risen to the position from the ranks. He was punished for some misconduct by an award of suspension for a period of two years and by reduction of pay from Rs.1,050 to Rs.900. That period of suspension came to an end on 13.10.1978. On that day, the respondent went to the Office of the appellant Bank for reporting to duty. THE Special Officer, who was in charge of the Bank, directed him to come on the next day. i.e., on 14.10.1978, though he received the joining report, which he returned to him. On 14.10.1978, the Special Officer, issued a memo, marked as Ex.A4 which reads as follows:

(2.) THE respondent filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, challenging the validity of the said order of suspension, which was contained in that memo. He raised several grounds against the validity of the order, chief among them being-(1) there cannot be a suspension on the ground of pendency of a criminal prosecution under the bye-laws of the society (2) the order of suspension was vitiated by MALA FIDES and (3) when other staff members were in similar situations facing criminal proceedings, they were not suspended.

(3.) IN this second appeal, the findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below on the question of MALA FIDES and the non-existence of the power in the Special Officer under the bye-laws as they stood at that time, were not challenged before me. Learned counsel also made it clear that the interpretation of the bye-laws adopted by the Courts below is correct. Only two contentions were urged by learned counsel for the appellant. The first contention is that the suit is barred by virtue of the provisions of Sec.100 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act read with Sec.119-A of the said Act. With reference to this contention, learned counsel relies upon a judgment rendered by me in RAMANATHAPURAM Dt. CONSUMERS CO-OP. WHOLESALE STORES LTD., BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER AND ITS SECRETARY v. S.BALASUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER, (1987)2 M.L.J. 274. IN that case, a similar order of suspension was passed by the Special Officer in charge of the Ramanathapuram District Consumers' Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., pursuant to a specific direction given by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. I had held that the direction given by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies fell within the scope of Sec.119-A of the Act and inasmuch as the said order of the Registrar was not challenged, the order of suspension passed by the Special Officer in obedience to such a direction given by the Registrar could not be challenged in the civil suit. I had, therefore, dismissed the suit filed by the employees. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the present case too, there was a direction by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Ex.B4, dated 13.10.1978. Ex.B4 is a communication from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to the Special Officer of the appellant Bank and it reads thus: