G SENTHILVEL Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner is the Secretary of the second respondent Co-operative Society from 14.07.1999. THE first respondent by his order in Na.Ka.No.2073/07 Ci.Ka dated 06.07.2007 issued a charge memo. One Thirumagan, who was a Sub Registrar of Co-operative Society, was appointed as an enquiry officer and 30 days time was granted for the enquiry officer to complete his enquiry. Admittedly, the enquiry officer on completing the enquiry, submitted his report on 06.09.2007. But, the first respondent has found certain defects in the said report. THErefore, the first respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.219/2008 Ku.Na. dated 29.01.2008, in exercise of his power under Section 81(5) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, (hereinafter referred as the Act) withdrew the said enquiry from the file of the enquiry officer and thereafter, he appointed another enquiry officer by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2073/2007/Ci.ka dated 26.12.2007. This time, one S. Thimilan was appointed as Enquiry Officer who is the fourth respondent in this writ petition. Challenging the said proceedings of the first respondent dated 26.12.2007 in Na.Ka.No.2073/2007 Ci.Ka, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that under Section 81(3) of the Act, the first respondent is duty bound to communicate the enquiry officers report to the Society concerned and for further action but, in this case, in stead of following the said procedure, the first respondent has cancelled the earlier proceedings of the enquiry officer and he has appointed another enquiry officer to hold enquiry in respect of the same allegations for which the enquiry was already held. He would further submit that though it is stated in the counter that fresh enquiry has been ordered as provided in Section 81(5) of the Act, the said stand taken by the respondent cannot be accepted since Section 81(5) of the Act would be applicable only in respect of pending proceedings. He further submitted that Section 81(4) of the Act, which provides for limitation for enquiry, cannot be allowed to be defeated by the respondents. If fresh enquiry is allowed to continue, it will run counter to Section 81(4) of the Act and therefore for these reasons, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned order of the first respondent ordering for a fresh enquiry should be quashed.