REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES Vs. G MANOHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Co-operative Movement was started in our country with a philosophy behind it and Co-operative Societies were formed with an object of infusing in the minds of people, the spirit of working in a group so that the members of the group gain benefit through collective contributions. It was truly Gandhian in its ideals. In its preamble, the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 very nobly states that it is meant to provide an orderly development of co-operative movement in accordance with principles like open membership, democratic management, thrift, self-help and mutual aid among persons with common socio-economic needs. It is intended to bring about improvement in agriculture and industry, better methods of production, better business and better living. But the objects have not been achieved. THEre has been a great deal of politicization of the co-operative movement there has also been widespread misappropriation and diversion of the funds generated from the common man by the persons in charge. Our hearts cannot but be dismayed at this fact. THE funds in a co-operative bank are meant to advance the democratic goal based on socio-economic principles. If they are allowed to be diverted, dissipated or frittered, it is betrayal of public trust.

(2.) IN this case, the first respondent, in charge of the affairs of a Co-operative Bank, is charged with acts of grave misconduct, including causing huge financial loss to the Bank and has challenged the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that he has attained the age of superannuation. He must face the proceedings and establish that he has not caused such loss. He cannot get away merely because he has reached a certain age. He must prove that he is innocent of causing loss to the Co-operative Society.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the first respondent, on the other hand, submitted mainly that there can be no continuance of disciplinary proceedings after the age of superannuation and so, the writ appeals must be dismissed. He referred to the following decisions to support his case :S. Natarajan vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1987 Writ L.R.191Mahadevan vs. The Special Officer/Deputy Registrar, South Arcot, etc. Stores Ltd., 1997 Writ L.R.120General Manager, Adilabad District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. vs. K. Ranga Rao, 2002 (II) L.L.J.983G. Ramamoorthy vs. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Company Ltd., 2003 (2) L.L.N.719Ramesh Chandra Sharma vs. Punjab National Bank, (2007) 9 S.C.C.15UCO Bank vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2007) 6 S.C.C.694