IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 9.11.2010
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI
W.P.No.3277 of 2009
S.Poongavanam .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
Villupuram Region, Villupuram,
Villupuram District.
2.The Special Officer,
Mundiyampakkam Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank
Mundiyampakkam Post,
Villupuram Taluk,
Villupuram District. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.4628/2007/Sa.Pa dated 19.2.2008 which was confirmed in proceedings No.Na.Ka.3124/2008/Sa.Pa dated 7.1.2009, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service in the second respondent bank with all attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondents : Mrs.D.Geetha, AGP (R1)
Mr.S.Gopinathan (R2)
O R D E R
The writ petition is filed to quash the order of the first respondent dated 19.2.2008 in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.4628/2007/Sa.Pa confirming the proceedings No.Na.Ka.3124/2008/Sa.Pa dated 7.1.2009 and to consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service in the second respondent bank with all attendant benefits.
2.The petitioner herein was while working as salesman in the second respondent bank suspended from service on certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by him in the fair price shop and the same was followed by charge memo. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation for the charges and the second respondent not satisfying with his explanation, ordered for domestic enquiry against the petitioner and after completion of domestic enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report to the second respondent holding the charges as proved. Thereafter, the second respondent has issued second show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the same and the second respondent has by accepting the finding of the enquiry officer, negatived the explanation submitted by the delinquent and passed the final order dated 15.5.2007 in and under which, the petitioner was terminated from service. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred statutory revision before the first respondent and the first respondent has by his order dated 19.2.2008 confirmed the order of the second respondent. The petitioner has also preferred review before the first respondent and the first respondent has rejected the review application also thereby the order of termination of the petitioner from service as passed by the second respondent is confirmed by the first respondent. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for the relief as stated supra.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously questioned the propriety and the validity of the impugned order of termination mainly on two grounds that (i) the petitioner could not effectively participate in the disciplinary proceedings due to failure of the disciplinary authority to disburse his subsistence allowance during his period of suspension and (ii) the irregularity found against the petitioner is not too severe in nature warranting termination of service and the impugned order is hence illegal, arbitrary, and is in violation of principles of natural justice and disproportionate to the nature of the charges proved.
4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned order of termination on the ground that the irregularities committed by the petitioner in the public Distribution system is very serious in nature and the same is in the event of allowing him to continue in service, likely to affect the reputation of the bank and the very distribution system which is for the benefit of the public.
5.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6.In the course of argument, the petitioner has filed additional typed set of papers containing the copy of charge memo and the explanation submitted by the petitioner for the charge memo which is enclosed at pages 1 to 8 of the same. The charge relates to an act of manipulation of records by overwriting the bills and with regard to balance of stock of rice and sugar and shortage in balance stock and failure to bring the purchase of sugar in the relevant register which constitute an act of misappropriation resulting in loss to the second respondent bank.
7.The facts that the petitioner assumed office as sales man in the second respondent bank from 1.6.2006 and the act of irregularities took place between June and September 2006 and irregularities were found out during September 2006 in the course of annual auditing are not denied. As per the charges, the petitioner was charged with 18 instances including his failure to submit his explanation for the charges found against him in the audit report. The petitioner in his explanation admitted all the charges but has only sought to explain the circumstances under which the same were committed and were subsequently rectified. One more explanation sought to be put forth is that the act of overwriting in the bill book and stock register is done by the other person by name, Rajavelu and the same was not brought to his notice. The enquiry officer has after duly holding enquiry, found all the charges proved against the petitioner. The enquiry officer has also found that though the act of overwriting amounting to manipulation of records is done by one Rajavelu, the petitioner is as the official in charge of maintenance of the records, responsible for the irregularities so found out.
8.The reading of the charge memo would reveal that the charges referring to manipulation of records and shortage and the failure to enter the purchase and sales of rice and sugar in the relevant records is very serious in nature and the same resulted in loss to the bank. As already referred to the nature of the
charges and the explanation submitted by the petitioner thereby adverting to the charges would justify the action of the respondents in initiating and holding disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner has except stating that he has not been disbursed with the entire subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension, not raised any ground much less valid ground against the manner in which the enquiry was held. The enquiry was otherwise held proper after giving due and effective opportunity to the petitioner for being heard and after fulfilling all the legal formalities. In so far as the payment of subsistence allowance is concerned, the particulars furnished in the counter affidavit reveals that the same was duly paid for the period upto January 2007 and the same was not paid due to failure on the part of the petitioner to produce non employment certificate. Even otherwise, the petitioner could have taken legal steps under Subsistence Allowance Payment Act and having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot assail the validity of impugned order on that ground.
9.As already referred to above, the domestic enquiry was duly held and all the charges were held to be proved against the petitioner. The explanation given by the petitioner for the irregularities found out did not convince either the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority. The finding of the enquiry officer is both based on the admission of the delinquent and entries found in the records. Though the petitioner has subsequently remitted the amount due to the bank, the same cannot be put forth as defence for relieving him from the charges which are otherwise serious in nature. The disciplinary authority has also after duly considering all the relevant factors in detail thought fit to terminate the petitioner from service and the same was also rightly confirmed by the revisional authority in the revision as well as in the review application. The High court cannot while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Art 226 of the constitution of India require to go into the findings on merits, unless the finding so rendered is perverse and without jurisdiction based on improper or no evidence at all. It is also well settled law that in cases of this nature, any sympathy shown towards the employee who is in-charge of distribution of essential commodities to the public, amounts to misplaced and unwarranted sympathy. In my considered view, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner cannot be in any manner said to be disproportionate to the charges levelled and both the grounds raised by the petitioner against the validity of the impugned order are factually and legally not sustainable and the petitioner is hence dis-entitled to get any relief in this writ petition.
10.In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
rk
To
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
Villupuram Region, Villupuram,
Villupuram District.
2.The Special Officer,
Mundiyampakkam Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank
Mundiyampakkam Post,
Villupuram Taluk,
Villupuram District