MANAGEMENT OF T N SPL Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal questions the Order in the writ petition, dated 22.11.2002. The Management of T.N. Spl. 139 Vasudevanallur Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Bank Limited, Vasudevanallur, is the appellant. The second respondent by name S.Ramaiah was employed as Secretary in the appellant Co-Operative Bank which was constituted under The Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983. He was placed under suspension on 03.02.1997 for various misconducts and ultimately after enquiry, he was terminated from service w.e.f. 01.08.1997. The said order was taken on appeal by the second respondent before the first respondent Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, Tirunelveli and the appellate authority has set aside the order of termination on the grounds that (1) the second respondent though was suspended, was not paid subsistence allowance and therefore, he was denied the opportunity to effectively participate in the enquiry; (2) the order of termination was issued retrospective with effect from the date of suspension and (3) even on merits, the management did not prove the charges. The said order of the appellate authority was questioned in W.P.No. 8504 of 1998 and the learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present writ appeal.

(2.) WE have heard Mr.N.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Co-Operative Bank and Mr.R.Thirugnanam, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent and also Mr.V.Gangadharan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/employee.

(3.) THE above said principle has been evolved keeping in mind the valuable right of an employee to effectively defend the charges. Unless and until the subsistence allowance is paid, the employee, whose services are dispensed, cannot effectively defend the enquiry.