S MUTHUSARAVANAN Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO OPREATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the proceedings of the respondent dated 8.8.1991, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder : While he was serving as Secretary of Avinashi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, he was temporarily suspended by the respondent on 16.11.1990. Thereafter he was informed that charge-sheet would be served on him separately. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 21.11.1990 containing 9 charges under the head of dereliction of responsibilities etc. He sent his detailed objections dated 14.12.1990. Thereafter, he received a communication calling upon him why he should not be removed from service on account of dereliction of duty and non-observance of the directions given by the superiors. He sent his reply oh 16.1.1991. However, the respondent constituted an enquiry on 27.3.1991 and appointed one Murugesan. an advocate of Coimbatore Bar as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was conducted on several occasions. There was no Presenting Officer. Even though the Enquiry Officer promised to give him copies of the statements recorded from him and from Karunakaran, he did not do so. Subsequently, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report. The copy of the report was not given to him. Relying upon the said report and accepting the Enquiry Officer's conclusions, the respondent passed an order on 8.8.1991 reverting him to the position of a clerk. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

(3.) The respondent filed a counter affidavit where it is stated that during the year 1981, the petitioner was promoted as secretary of the respondent society. Previously he was the supervisor. Several irregularities committed by the petitioner came to light during the audit and inspection. For the acts of commissions and omissions, he was placed under suspension pending investigation and thereafter, he was asked to offer his explanation. He wanted to have the inspection of the records and he was granted permission for the same. After inspection, he gave his explanation on 14.12.1990. Since his explanation was found to be unacceptable, by a notice dated 29.12.1990, he was asked to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the charges levelled against him. A domestic enquiry was held and the petitioner fully participated in it. The Enquiry Officer gave his report on 10.6.1991 holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The report of the Enquiry Officer was placed before the General Body in the meeting held on 19.7.1991. The General Body recorded that he should be demoted as Supervisor-cum-clerk without reduction in his emoluments. By an order dated 8.8.1991, the decision of the General Body was communicated to the petitioner and he was reverted as Supervisor-cum-clerk. The said demotion is perfectly valid in law and justified and the same is not liable to be interfered with for all or any of the reasons urged in the writ petition. The petitioner was given every opportunity to peruse the records and there is no basis for any of the contentions raised in the writ petition ; accordingly the respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.