IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 11-09-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.4584 of 2001 P.Kamaraj .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dindigul. 2.D.P.2 Periyakottai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Periyakottai, (via) Sathirappatti, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District, Rep. by its President. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents in Na.Ka.613/2001/Sa.Pa., dated 21.2.2001, received on 2.3.2001, preceded by the order of supercession, dated (Nil) and quash the same as illegal, unlawful without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice and consequently reinstate the petitioner as Secretary of D.P.2, Periyakottai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Periyakottai, (Via) Sathirappatti, Ottanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District with full backwages continuity of service and other benefits thereto. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan Additional Government Pleader (R1) Mr.G.K.Harihararajan (R2) O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner had been recruited as a Secretary of the second respondent Society, in accordance with Rule 149 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1983, from 16.3.98. While so, the Tamilnadu State Primary Co-operative Bank Employee’s Association had announced an indefinite strike raising various demands, with effect from 19.10.2000. Pursuant to the strike call, issued by the Association, the employees of the second respondent bank had participated in the strike. After the strike had been called off, on 25.10.2000, the petitioner had gone to the second respondent bank to resume his duties. However, he was not permitted to do so. While so, the second respondent had issued a show cause notice, on 24.10.2000, to all the bank employees, to resume duties and stating that on their failure to do so, action would be taken against them. The said show cause notice was received by the petitioner, on 31.10.2000. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner had gone to the second respondent bank to rejoin duty. The petitioner had also submitted an explanation to the second respondent stating the events that had taken place on 25.10.2000 and thereafter. On receipt of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an order had been issued suspending the petitioner from service, from 31.10.2000. Since the writ petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the said impugned order, was held to be not maintainable, by an order passed by this Court, on 19.12.2000, in W.P.S.R.No.89408 of 2000, the petitioner had filed a revision petition before the first respondent, under Section 153 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The first respondent had passed an order, on 21.2.2001, dismissing the revision petition. No reasons have been given for dismissing the revision petition. Thus it is a non-speaking order and it is contrary to law and therefore, it is illegal and void. The said order of the first respondent is also contrary to the principles of natural justice and as such it is illegal and void. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner in his writ petition. It has been stated that since the employees of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks, including the petitioner, had participated in an illegal strike, with effect from 19.10.2000, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice and thereafter, he was suspended from service pending enquiry, by an order issued by the second respondent, on 31.10.2000. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the suspension order issued by the second respondent by way of filing a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since such a writ petition is not maintainable against an order passed by the second respondent Co-operative Society. Further, the writ petition has become infructuous due to the fact that the management of the second respondent Bank, had conducted the enquiry and issued the final order, dated 17.5.2001, dismissing the petitioner from service. In fact the petitioner had challenged the said order, dated 17.5.2001, dismissing the petitioner from service by way of a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.4781 of 2002.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that in view of the fact that a final order has been passed, on 17.5.2001, after an inquiry had been conducted, dismissing the petitioner from service, the present writ petition which has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of suspension passed against him, has become infructuous.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not refuted the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. In such circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
csh
To
1.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative
Societies, Dindigul.
2. The President.
D.P.2 Periyakottai Primary Agricultural
Co-operative Bank, Periyakottai,
(via) Sathirappatti,
Ottanchathiram Taluk,
Dindigul District
[ PRV / 15843 ]