In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 31/10/2003
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
Writ Petition No.28820 of 2003
and
WPMP.No.35203 of 2003
1. M. Kalidas
2. R. Gnanasekaran .. Petitioners
-Vs-
1. The Registrar of Co.operative
Societies, NVN Maligai
Kilpauk, Chennai.
2. The Joint Registrar of Co.operative
Societies, Nagapattinam.
3. Deputy Registrar of Co.operative
Societies, Myiladuthurai.
4. The Special Officer
Therizhandur Primary Agricultural
Co.op. Bank, Therizhandur Post
Nagapattinam District.
5. The Enquiry Officer CSR
Therizhandur Primary Agricultural
Co.op. Bank, Therizhandur Post
Nagapattinam District. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of writ of certiorari as stated therein.
For petitioners : Mrs. Aparna
For respondents : Mrs. G. Kavitha
Government Advocate for R.1 to 3
:ORDER
By consent of both the parties, writ petition itself is taken
up for disposal.
2. The petitioners challenge the order of suspension issued
by the 4th respondent dated 29.09.2003.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3.
4. After taking me through the impugned order of suspension,
the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contentions:
(i) First of all, the 4th respondent is not the competent
Officer to pass the impugned order; and
(ii) In the absence of specific period, i.e., suspension from
such date and for such period and without specification of the same, the
suspension order cannot stand.
5. In the light of Sub-clause (2) of Section 76 of the Tamil
Nadu Co.operative Societies Act, 1983 ( in short “the Act”), I am unable to
accept the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners;
accordingly, I reject the same.
6. In so far as the second contention is concerned, in the
light of Section 76 (1) (b), it is incumbent on the part of the Authority
concerned to specify the period and date while ordering suspension. The
following Clause in Section 76 (1) (b) of the Act is relevant, which reads as
under.
“76. Suspension of a paid officer or servant of society. — (1) …….
(a)…….
(b)……
the Registrar may direct, where the paid officer or servant is borne
on a common cadre of service the competent authority constituted under
sub-section (3) of Section 75 and in other case, the registered society under
which the paid officer or servant is employed, pending such investigation,
trial and disposal of the matter, to place or cause to be placed such paid
officer or servant under suspension from such date and for such period as may
be specified by him. ”
In the light of the above mentioned provision and in the
absence of prescribing such date and such period in the impugned order, I am
satisfied that the same cannot be sustained. In similar circumstance, R.
Balasubramanian,J., in W.P.No.11618 of 2002 dated 19.11.2002, quashed similar
order of suspension on the ground that the order does not prescribe the period
upto which the petitioner would be under suspension. I am in agreement with
the said view.
In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order of
suspension of the 4th respondent dated 29.09.2003, is quashed and liberty is
given to the respondents / competent authority to proceed afresh in accordance
with law, as pointed out above. The writ petition is allowed to this extent.
No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP., is closed.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
kh
To
1. The Registrar of Co.operative
Societies, NVN Maligai
Kilpauk, Chennai.
2. The Joint Registrar of Co.operative
Societies, Nagapattinam.
3. Deputy Registrar of Co.operative
Societies, Myiladuthurai.
4. The Special Officer
Therizhandur Primary Agricultural
Co.op. Bank, Therizhandur Post
Nagapattinam District.
5. The Enquiry Officer CSR
Therizhandur Primary Agricultural
Co.op. Bank, Therizhandur Post
Nagapattinam District.