S RAMASAMY Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Secretary in the third respondent Bank and he has been carrying on his duties diligently, without any blemish. However, the second respondent, vide proceedings No.Na.Ka.6123/2000 Ve.Se.Sa., dated 21.12.2000, had directed the third respondent to suspend the petitioner from the service and to conduct an enquiry, under Section 81 of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. The enquiry was to be conducted with regard to the alleged irregularities committed by the elected Board of the third respondent Bank. The proceedings of the second respondent is unwarranted and uncalled for. Based on the proceedings of the second respondent, the third respondent, vide proceedings, dated 29.12.2000, had suspended the petitioner from service. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order, dated 29.12.2000, issued by the President of the third respondent Bank and the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 21.12.2000, are illegal and they are unlawful, since the petitioner, who is the Secretary of the third respondent Bank comes under the supervision and control of the first respondent, who is the cadre authority, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 8.6.88, and by virtue of the said Government Order neither the second respondent nor the third respondent has any authority or power or jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner from service. THE second and third respondents have issued the impugned orders without following the principles of natural justice, as he was not issued with a show cause notice before he was suspended from service. When the alleged irregularities are relating to the elected Board of the management of the third respondent Bank, it is improper for the second and third respondents to suspend the petitioner from service. In such circumstances, the impugned orders are contrary to law and G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 8.6.88.