BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06/02/2008 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.(MD)No.6306 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007 R.Govindaraj ..Petitioner vs. 1.The Commissioner of Handlooms and Textiles, Chennai - 108. 2.The Joint Director, Handlooms and Textiles, Chennai - 108. ..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in R.C.No.4832/07/Q1 dated 04.06.2007 confirming the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in R.C.No.23850/03/Q1 dated 20.12.2006 and to quash the same. !For Petitioner ... Mr.A.Thirumurthy ^For Respondents ... Mrs.V.Chellammal, Spl.G.P. :ORDER
The petitioner is a Handldoom Officer. During the period between
07.02.2000 and 25.05.2001, he worked as Secretary cum Special officer of Cumbum
Natarajan Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society, Madurai Circle. During his
tenure as Secretary/Special Officer in the said society, certain irregularities
were found out and on that basis, charges were framed against the petitioner
under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
Sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend the said charges.
An enquiry was also held accordingly. The Enquiry Officer gave a report to the
effect that the charges stands proved. Based on the said report and after
following the due procedure under law, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed a
punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect by
the proceedings of the Joint Director of Handloom, Chennai in R.C.No.23850/03/Q-
1 dated 20.12.2006. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal against the
said order to the Commissioner of Handloom and Textiles, Chennai, who is the
first respondent herein. The first respondent by his proceedings in
R.C.No.4832/07/Q1 dated 04.06.2007 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the
punishment imposed on the petitioner by the second respondent. The petitioner
challenges the same in this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
in respect of the same allegations, an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil
Nadu Co-operative Societies Act was conducted and on which basis, proceedings
were initiated under Section 87 of the said Act against the petitioner and other
officers. An award was passed directing the petitioner to pay some amount.
Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Co-operative
Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the said appeal and set aside the award made
against the petitioner under Section 87 of the Act. The learned counsel
contends that since it has been found by the Tribunal that the petitioner is not
guilty in any manner, the charge should be held to be baseless and on that
basis, the impugned order of punishment is to be set aside. But I am not able
to persuade myself to agree with the said argument. The charge in this case
against the petitioner is dereliction of duty as he had acted without diligence
and failed to supervise the day to day affairs of the society properly which
paved the way for the other employees of the society to cause loss to the
society. But, a perusal of the records would go to show that in the proceedings
initiated under Section 87 of the Act, it was alleged that the petitioner acted
in wilful negligence which resulted in the loss. Of course, a finding was given
by the Deputy Registrar holding that the petitioner was responsible for the loss
to the society and the same was set aside in the appeal by the Tribunal.
4. A glance at the order of the Tribunal dated 25.04.2005 would go to show
that the appeal was allowed on the ground that the proceedings under Section 87
of the Act initiated against the petitioner was barred by limitation contained
under Section 87(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act. A close
reading of the Judgment of the tribunal would go to show that the Tribunal has
not given any finding that the petitioner was not guilty of negligence much less
wilful negligence. Therefore, the fact that the appeal was allowed by the
Tribunal on a technical ground of limitation cannot be a ground at all to hold
that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges in the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against him on the basis of the same allegations.
5. There is a basic difference between proceedings initiated under
Section 87 of the Act and the disciplinary proceedings initiated under the
Service Rules. Under Section 87 of the Act, an officer shall be held
responsible if only it is proved that he is guilty of wilful negligence. Time
and again, this Court has held that to make an award under Section 87 of the
Act, mere negligence is not suffice, but wilful negligence is required to be
proved. But in the disciplinary proceedings, mere negligence may at times
constitute misconduct as defined in the Service Rules. It is thus true that
mere negligence is not suffice to pass an award under Section 87 of the Act, but
it is suffice to punish him in the disciplinary proceedings if it constitutes
misconduct. The negligence need not be a wilful negligence in so far as it
relates to the disciplinary proceedings. For all these reasons, I am not in a
position to agree the contenti