IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.03.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN W.P.NO.11576 OF 2010 AND M.P.NO.3 OF 2010 T.M.Gajendiran .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, No.170, EVR Periyar Salai, Kilpauk, Chennai-10. .. Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.U.Karunakaran For Respondents : Mr.P.Wilson,Addl.Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.Gopinathan, AGP (W) Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the file relating to G.O.Ms.No.62 Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 26.5.2010 cancelling the order of promotion vide G.O.Ms.No.208 Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 11.12.2008 and demoting him to the post of Co-operative Sub Registrar on the file of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to place him in the same post. ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the file relating to G.O.Ms.No.62 Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 26.5.2010 cancelling the order of promotion vide G.O.Ms.No.208 Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 11.12.2008 and demoting him to the post of Co-operative Sub Registrar on the file of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to place him in the same post.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as follows:
2.1. The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent as Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies having been appointed by ‘direct recruitment’ through Public Service Commission on 4.4.1979 and thereafter, he was promoted as Co-operative Sub Registrar on 30.8.1993. The next promotional post is Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the petitioner’s name was not considered till 2007. After 15 years, the petitioner was recommended on 20.6.2008 for the panel 2007-2008 for the post of Deputy Registrar and the said panel of Officers fit for promotion including petitioner was approved on 17.11.2008. Thereafter, pursuant to the approval of the said panel, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Registrar vide G.O.Ms.No.208 Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 11.12.2008 and accordingly, he was posted as Deputy Registrar (Chief Revenue Officer) Central Co-operative Bank, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
2.2. While that be so, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.62, dated 26.5.2010 cancelling the promotion of the petitioner as Deputy Registrar and demoting him to the post of Sub Registrar as there was charge memo, dated 20.11.2008 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (in short, “the Rules”), pending against the petitioner for certain irregularities committed by him while he was working as Co-operative Sub Registrar/Special Officer of Vishnuwakkam Primary Agricultural Coperative Bank.
2.3. The impugned G.O.Ms.62 dated 26.5.2010 was issued in a hasty manner without even issuing prior notice and without calling for explanation from the petitioner. The charge memo was ante dated 20-11-2008 and was served on the petitioner only on 12.12.2008, whereas, the panel was approved as early as on 17.11.2008 and the petitioner was promoted on 11.12.2008. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the said charge memo was not brought to the notice of the authorities while approving the panel and it was not even communicated to the petitioner till 12.12.2008. Therefore, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.62, dated 26.5.2010 is liable to be set aside since as on the date of approval of the panel, no charge was pending. The charge memo was issued based on a complaint given by one Mr.Devan, against whom, the petitioner had issued charge memo for having committed certain irregularities while working as Secretary of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank at Veerarghavapuram. The petitioner had also taken necessary action against one Mr.Kamaraj, who committed irregularities in stock deficit to the extent of Rs.2,11,272.60 in respect of non-controlled goods and Rs.50,011.90 in respect of controlled goods and charges were framed against him for recovery of the said amount. However, the petitioner was immediately transferred within 17 days from the date of the above action and in such circumstances, he was unable to recover the said amount. Now the impugned charge memo was issued against the petitioner stating that he had not inspected the fair price shops every month and he has not taken any statutory action to recover the stock deficit amount of Rs.2,61,284/-. The charge memo dated 20.11.2008 was issued against the petitioner with a mala fide intention in order to deprive the promotion to him since it was issued after eight years from the date of the alleged irregularities.
2.4. Therefore, challenging the impugned G.O.Ms.No.62, dated 26.5.2010, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.
3. The respondents denied the case of the petitioner by filing a counter affidavit, inter alia stating that even in the year 2005-2006 when the panel was approved for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar, the petitioner’s name was considered as he was not fit for promotion since he was awarded punishments of stoppage of increments for three months and they were in currency on the crucial date of panel i.e. on 1.10.2004. It is further stated that in the enquiry report, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvallur Region has reported that for the irregularties occurred in Vishnuvakkam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, charges under Rule 17(b) of the Rules were framed against the petitioner and as the petitioner was not available since on leave from 5.12.2008 to 11.12.2008, the said charge memo was served on 13.12.2008 on which date, the petitioner reported to duty. In G.O.Ms.No.756 Public (Services) dated 22.4.1964, it has been ordered that an order of notification of promotion of appointment of a government servant in an officiating capacity to a higher post should be cancelled as soon as it is brought to the notice of the appointing authority that such a promotion or appointment has resulted from a factual error and the government servant concerned should immediately on such cancellation be brought to the position which he would have held but for the incorrect order of promotion or appointment. Therefore, there is no need to call for explanation from the petitioner before cancelling the promotion. As such, based on the above, by letter dated 22.5.2009, the proposals of the second respondent have been sent to the government for deletion of the name of the petitioner from the approved list of Co-operative Sub-Registrars fit for promotion as Deputy Registrars for the year 2007-2008 and also for reverting him to the post of Co-operative Sub Registrar. The Government have accepted the above recommendation of the second respondent and issued the G.O.Ms.No.62, dated 26.5.2010 cancelling the promotion of the petitioner and demoting him to the post of Sub Registrar. Therefore, the charge memo was not ante dated, but it was served on the petitioner belatedly due to his non-availability and hence, it cannot be said there was no charge pending on the date of approval of the panel. It is also stated that the said charge memo was issued to the petitioner for the serious irregularities committed by him while he was working as Special Officer of the Vishnuvakkam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank and it was framed on 20.11.2008 and served on him on 13.12.2008, i.e. even before his actual date of joining as Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, i.e. on 15.12.2008 and therefore, the charge memo was not issued with any mala fide intention. With these averments, the respondents sough for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order of reversion was made in a hasty manner without even issuing a show cause notice and without hearing the petitioner. Therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a person actually reverted must be given an opportunity to show cause, otherwise, a serious prejudice would be caused to him. The learned counsel would further contend that on the date of order of promotion, there was no service of the charge memo based on which, the impugned order was issued and therefore, there was no legal impediment to promote the petitioner and that the order of promotion will take effect from the date of the order. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in “(1991) 4 SCC 209 (Union of India and others versus K.V.Janakiraman and others)” , wherein, it has been held in para 16, 17 and 32 as under:
“16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/ criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions Nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows: (ATC p. 196, para 39)
(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official;
(2) * * *
(3) * * *
(4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge-sheet filed before the criminal court and not before;
“17. There is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between the two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion No. 1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions.
“32. In this case, no charge-sheet was served on the respondent-employee when the DPC met to consider the respondents promotion. Yet, the sealed cover procedure was adopted. The Tribunal has rightly directed the authorities to open the sealed cover and if the respondent was found fit for promotion by the DPC, to give him the promotion from the date his immediate junior Shri M. Raja Rao was promoted pursuant to the order dated April 30, 1986. The Tribunal has also directed the authorities to grant to the respondent all the consequential benefits. The Tribunal has further stated in the impugned order that its order would not mean that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the respondent-employee should not go on. We see no reason to interfere with this order. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs.”
In “(1975) 3 SCC 503 (Dr.Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia versus The State of Punjab and others)”, in para 10, it has been held as under:
“10. …. An An order of appointment may be of three kinds. It may appoint a person with effect from the date he assumes charge of the post or it may appoint him with immediate effect or it may appoint him simpliciter without saying as to when the appointment shall take effect. Where the order of appointment is of the first kind, the appointment would be effective only when the person appointed assumes charge of the post and that would be the date of his appointment. It would be then that he is appointed. But in a case of the second kind, which is the one with which we are concerned since the order dated April 8, 1964, appointed Respondents 3 to 19 to PCMS Class I with immediate effect, the appointment would be effective immediately irrespective as to when the person appointed assumes charge of the post. The date of his appointment in such a case would be the same as the date of the order of appointment. It is, therefore, obvious that so far as Respondents 3 to 19 were concerned, the date of their appointment was April 8, 1964 and the length of their continuous service in PCMS Class I was required to be reckoned from that date. It is true that Respondents 3 to 19 did not assume charge of their respective posts of promotion until after April 25, 1964, but that makes no difference because the length of continuous service is to be counted from the date of appointment on the hypothesis that once the appointment is effective the person concerned is in the post and his service in the post is deemed to have commenced though under the Rules governing his conditions of service he may not be entitled to the salary and allowances attached to the post until he assumes charge of the post. ….”
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would contend that there was a mistake on the part of the respondents in promoting the petitioner while there was a charge memo pending under Section 17(b) of the Rules and therefore, the promotion given effect by the respondents is erroneous and it is against the Rules and Government Orders and even if an erroneous promotion is given contrary to the Rules and Government Orders, the respondents cannot be prevented from applying the rules in correcting such erroneous promotion. He would further contend that even before the date of promotion, the charge memo was served on the petitioner, i.e. on 13.12.2008 and therefore, when substantial charges were framed and pending against the petitioner, it can always be held against the petitioner even for inclusion of his name in the panel as well as for consideration of the promotion. In support of his contentions, the learned Addl.Advocate General relied upon the decision reported in “(2008) 2 SCC 750 (Union of India and another versus Narendra Singh)”, wherein, it has been categorically held as under in para 32:
“32. It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent was promoted though he was not eligible and qualified. But, we cannot countenance the submission of the respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due process of law. In ‘ICAR v. T.K.Suryanaranayan, it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees but a court of law cannot ignore statutory rules.”
6. The learned Addl.Advocate General also relied upon a decision reported in “(1997) 6 SCC 766 (Indian Council of Agricultural Research and another versus T.K.Suryanarayan and others)” wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under in para 8:
“8. We are, however, unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing in both these SLPs. Even if in some cases, erroneous promotions had been given contrary to the said Service Rules and consequently such employees have been allowed to enjoy the fruits of improper promotion, an employee cannot base his claim for promotion contrary to the statutory service rules in law courts. Incorrect promotion either given erroneously by the department by misreading the said Service Rules or such promotion given pursuant to judicial orders contrary to Service Rules cannot be a ground to claim erroneous promotion by perpetrating infringement of statutory service rules….”
7. Heard Mr.Karunakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr.P.Wilson, learned Addl.Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner joined in the services of the respondents as Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies appointed by ‘direct recruitment’ through Public Service Commission on 4.4.1979 and thereafter, he was promoted as Co-operative Sub Registrar on 30.8.1993. The petitioner claims that after 15 years of service, his name was recommended for inclusion in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar on 17.11.2008 and thereafter, on the approval of the said panel, he was promoted as Deputy Registrar vide G.O.Ms.No.208, dated 11.12.2008 and he worked in that capacity till the impugned order of reversion was passed. It is seen that a charge memo under Section 17(b) of the Rules was sent on 2.12.2008 and as the petitioner was on leave from 5.12.2008 to 11.12.2008 and when he joined duty on 13.2008 after availing the leave, the said charge memo was served on him. While that be so, the promotion order dated 11.12.2008 was given effect to and the petitioner was allowed to continue and thereafter, by impugned G.O.Ms.No.62, dated 26.5.2010, the petitioner’s promotion was cancelled and he was reverted.
9. It is to be noted that the crucial date for the preparation of panel for the year 2007-2008 is 1.10.2007 and the said panel of the officers fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar was approved on 17.11.2008 by the Government in its order in G.O.Ms.No.193 Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, wherein, the petitioner’s name was included in the panel at Serial No.2. Thereafter, pursuant to the approval of the said panel, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.208 CF & CP Department, dated 11.12.2008 promoting the Officers who were included in the panel to the post of Deputy Registrars including the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that as on date, i.e. 11.12.2008 when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar posted as Deputy Registrar (Chief Revenue Officer), Central Co-operative Bank, Kumbakonam, there was no communication of the charge memo, dated 20.11.2008 which was framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Rules for certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by him during the year 2002 while he was working as Special Officer (in-charge) at Vishnuvakkam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank.
10. According to the learned Addl.Advocate General, at the time of approval of the panel and promoting the petitioner as Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the charge memo, dated 20.11.2008 was not brought to the notice of the appointing authority and therefore, a factual mistake had taken place in promoting the petitioner to the post of Deputy Registrar and it cannot be said that as on the date of promotion, there was no charge pending as claimed by the petitioner. It is the further case of the respondents that there was delay in communicating the charge memo, dated 20.11.2008 to the petitioner since he was on leave from 5.12.2008 to 11.12.2008 and it was served on him only on 13.12.2008. Therefore, when substantial charges were pending against the petitioner, he came to be promoted due to mistake of the Department and when such erroneous promotion was made, it is always open to the authorities to set right such mistake by cancelling the said erroneous promotion and as such, the Government has rightly cancelled the said erroneous promotion by issuing the impugned G.O.Ms.No.62, dated 26.5.2010. Hence, the learned Addl.Advocate General vehemently contended that when admittedly, an erroneous promotion was given to the petitioner while substantial charges under Rule 17(b) of the Rules were pending against the petitioner, the Government in its order in G.O.Ms.No.62, dated 26.5.2010 has set right the situation by cancelling the said erroneous promotion and therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be faulted with.
11. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer G.O.368, dated 18.10.1993 wherein, consolidated instructions were issued regarding the preparation of panel for appointment by promotion. Clause II in the said G.O. refers ‘Preparation of Panels’, which reads as under:
“II. Preparation of Panels:
(i) Particulars/Documents to be sent to Government for preparation of panels:- Particulars/Documents to be sent to Government by the Heads of Department for preparation of panel should be as shown in the Proforma in Annexure-IV.
Consequently, all panel files should contain particulars/documents as required under the columns in the Proforma given in Annexure-IV. The panel files should also contain seniority list as per instructions contained in Annexure-V.
(ii) .... .... .... .... (iii) .... .... .... .... (iv) Consideration of persons against whom enquiries are pending and specific charges have been framed or charge sheet has been filed in criminal cases:-
(1) In the case of pending enquiries including Vigilance enquiries and in cases where specific charges have not been framed, promotions and appointments shall be considered on the basis of the performance of the officers coming under the zone of selection as on the date of consideration for promotion/appointment as revealed through the Personal Files/Record Sheets and of the punishments, if any previously imposed. In cases where specific charges have been famed or charge sheet has been filed in criminal case, promotion/appointment of such persons shall be deferred till the proceedings are concluded. The Government servants whose promotions etc. are deferred on account of pending charges etc. should be informed of the fact as per specimen letter given in Annexure-VII. They must, however be considered for promotion if they are exonerated or acquitted from the charges. If found suitable with reference to all relevant criteria, they shall then be given the promotion with retrospective effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted.”
12. Therefore, a perusal of the above guidelines makes it ample clear that for preparation of panel, particulars/documents relating to the officers who are fit for promotion have to be sent to Government by the Heads of Department as shown in the Proforma in Annexure-IV and V which specifically denotes whether any charges are pending against the officer.
13. In the instant case, admittedly, at the time of preparation of the panel and its approval, there was no communication regarding the pendency of the charges under Rule 17(b) of the Rules against the petitioner to the Head of the Department. Therefore, in the absence of any such information, the Department approved the panel and effected the promotion in favour of the petitioner. It is only on 22.5.2009 the second respondent brought to the notice of the department regarding the pendency of the charges against the petitioner and sent proposals to the Government for deletion of the name of the petitioner from the approved list and also for reverting him to the post of Co-operative Sub Registrar. Based on the said proposals of the second respondent, the first respondent issued impugned G.O., cancelling the promotion of the petitioner and reverting him to the post of Sub-Registrar.
14. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.208, dated 11.12.2008, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Registrar (Chief Revenue Officer), Central Co-operative Bank, Kumbakonam and was working as such till the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.62, dated 26.5.2010 was passed by the first respondent. It is also not in dispute that the impugned order of cancellation and reversion was issued without even issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner.
15. It is a settled legal position that an order of reversion against an employee will have an impact on his status as due to such reversion, he again holds lower position which may cause ignominy and humiliation to him. In the case of “Union of India and another versus Narendra Singh” (cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under in para 34:
“True it is that before such an action is taken and a person is actually reverted, he must be given an opportunity to show cause why the proposed action should not be taken. He may be able to satisfy the authorities that there was no such mistake. But even otherwise, principles of natural justice and fair play require giving of such opportunity to him. …..”
Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a reasonable opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner enabling him to satisfy the authorities regarding the irregularities alleged to have been committed by him during the year 2002.
16. It is the cardinal principle that the action of the competent authority requires a fair play and reasonableness and there must be a procedure to be followed. Therefore, the principles of natural justice and fair play require giving of such an opportunity of hearing by issuing a show cause notice to the concerned employee and seeking for an explanation from him and thereafter, the order shall be made. In the absence of any such procedure, then there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. In the instant case, on a perusal of the entire materials available on record, it reveals that the respondents have not followed any such procedure as to issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and calling upon him an explanation in respect of their proposed action in reverting him. Therefore, the order impugned is ex facie illegal and liable to be set aside.
17. One the of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the promotion was made on 11.12.2008 vide G.O.Ms.No.208, dated 11.12.2008 on which date there was no service of the charge memo dated 20.11.2008. It is true that the order adverse to the person concerned should be served on him and then only it will have a force of effect of the order. But in this case, even before the date of promotion, a charge memo under Section 17(b) of the Rules was prepared on 20.11.2008, but it was served on the petitioner only on 13.12.2008. In this regard, the legal position as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in “Union of India and another versus Narendra Singh” (cited supra), by following its earlier decision in “ICAR versus T.K.Suryanarayan ((1997) 6 SCC 766), is clear that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the Rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the Rules rightly in order to correct the mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees, but a court of law cannot ignore statutory rules.
18. As already discussed earlier, in the instant case, as per the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.368, dated 18.10.1993, which is a guiding force of law in the matter of preparation of panels when charges were pending against the officers who await promotions, Clause (iv) of the said G.O., it is specifically made clear that if specific charges are framed before actual promotion, the person concerned shall not be promoted notwithstanding the fact his name has been included in the panel. If that being the legal position, as the Government order is force of law and it is for the respondents to correct the erroneous promotion if any made contrary to the above order. The charge memo issued under Section 17(b) of the Rules was prepared even before the date of promotion though not served on the petitioner on a particular time, but later it was served on him. Of-course, the respondents cannot be prevented from applying the said rules/Government Order in correcting the mistake, taking into account of the fact that the promotion was erroneously given to the petitioner. But the same can be done only by following due procedure as contemplated under the law. If the promotion is erroneous or otherwise, it can be decided only after affording an opportunity to the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice to him, on which occasion, he may satisfy the authorities that there was no mistake on his part.
19. For the foregoing reasons and discussion and on analysing the various materials and documents and after giving due considerations to the decisions relied by the learned counsel on either side, I am of the considered view that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.62, dated 26.5.2010 is set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed afresh after issuing a notice and calling upon the petitioner for explanation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection
Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
No.170, EVR Periyar Salai, Kilpauk,
Chennai 10