{"id":31930,"date":"2007-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007"},"modified":"2019-03-09T11:04:07","modified_gmt":"2019-03-09T05:34:07","slug":"pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"Pudukottai Central Co-Operative … vs The Presiding Officer on 23 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Pudukottai Central Co-Operative … vs The Presiding Officer on 23 November, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                   DATED :    23.11.2007\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO\n                             AND\n           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n                              \n                              \n         WRIT APPEAL Nos.2579 of 2003 and 2068 of 2004\n\n\n\nW.A. No.2579\/2003:\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nPudukottai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.\nRep.by its Special Officer\nPudukottai.           \t\t\t\t...           Appellant\n\n\n            Vs\n\n\n1.  The Presiding Officer\n    Labour Court\n    Tiruchirapalli.\n\n2.  K.Saminathan        \t\t\t...           Respondents\n\n\n\n\nW.A. No.2068\/2003:\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nK.Saminathan          \t\t\t\t...           Appellant\n\n\n           Vs\n\n\n1.  The Presiding Officer\n    Labour Court\n    Tiruchirapalli.\n\n2.  Pudukottai Central Co operative Bank Ltd.\n    Rep.by its Special Officer\n    Pudukottai.        \t\t\t\t...           Respondents\n\n\n\n\n       Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.\n\n\n==========================================================================\nFor Appellant in WA.2579\/2003 & R.2 in WA.2068\/2004 : Mr.R.Parthiban\n==========================================================================\nFor Appellant in WA.2068\/2004 & R.2 in WA.2579\/2003 : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,\n\t                            \t\t      Sr. Counsel for \n\t\t\t\t\t\t      Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi.\n==========================================================================\n\n\n\n                       COMMON JUDGMENT\n\nS.PALANIVELU,J.\n<\/pre>\n
        These appeals have been filed, one by the management<\/p>\n
and  the  other  by  the workman, against the  order,  dated<\/p>\n
24.06.2003,  made in W.P.No.5544 of 1995, whereby  the  writ<\/p>\n
petitioner\/workman was directed to be reinstated in  service<\/p>\n
with continuity of service, but without back wages.<\/p>\n
        2.  For  the  sake  of convenience,  the  litigative<\/p>\n
status  of  the  parties is referred  to  as  per  the  Writ<\/p>\n
Petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        3.  Petitioner joined the services of the respondent<\/p>\n
bank  in  1970  as  a Junior Supervisor.  In  1978,  he  was<\/p>\n
dismissed from service on certain charges.  In view  of  the<\/p>\n
settlement  arrived at on 29.02.1980, which was the  outcome<\/p>\n
of  conciliation proceedings initiated before the  Assistant<\/p>\n
Commissioner  of Labour, Pudukottai, he was  absorbed  as  a<\/p>\n
fresh entrant from 01.03.1980, as a Clerk.  Ever since 1977,<\/p>\n
he  was also the General Secretary of the Pudukottai Central<\/p>\n
Co-operative  Bank Employees’ Union, which is affiliated  to<\/p>\n
A.I.B.E.A.  Since he had been espousing the cause of  labour<\/p>\n
community,   voicing   the  service  conditions   of   other<\/p>\n
employees, he earned wrath of the management. As he came  to<\/p>\n
know  that the Special Officer made some defamatory  remarks<\/p>\n
against  him  in  his personal files, he issued  a  lawyer’s<\/p>\n
notice  on  05.08.1983, calling upon the Special Officer  to<\/p>\n
withdraw  the  remarks. On 16.08.1983, the  Special  Officer<\/p>\n
gave  a  reply.  Petitioner instituted a suit for defamation<\/p>\n
against  the said Officer. However, on 16.08.1983 itself,  a<\/p>\n
charge  memo  came to be issued to the petitioner,  alleging<\/p>\n
the  misconduct of defaming the Special Officer.  Petitioner<\/p>\n
sent a reply, dated 25.08.1983, denying the imputations. Not<\/p>\n
content  with  the  explanation, the  respondent  management<\/p>\n
appointed  an  Enquiry  Officer, to conduct  a  departmental<\/p>\n
enquiry against the petitioner, and a charge sheet was  also<\/p>\n
served  on him. Subsequently, he was suspended from  service<\/p>\n
with effect from 28.10.1983.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        4.  On  03.12.1983, the respondent  again  issued  a<\/p>\n
second  charge  sheet  to  the  petitioner,  indicating  the<\/p>\n
lapses, which were allegedly committed by him while  he  was<\/p>\n
in  service  at  Karambakudi Branch, during the  year  1981.<\/p>\n
Since the petitioner had not been attending the hearings  of<\/p>\n
enquiry,  the enquiry was conducted ex parte. The  following<\/p>\n
charges  were  framed against the petitioner in  two  charge<\/p>\n
sheets :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                     (i)   Petitioner  was   using
\n            abusive language in the communications
\n            addressed  to the management,  in  the
\n            capacity of General Secretary  of  the
\n            union,   and   he   made   false   and
\n            unnecessary  allegations  against  the
\n            management,   causing   disgrace   and
\n            injury to its goodwill.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (ii) While the petitioner  was
\n            working  as  a Cashier in  Karambakudi
\n            Branch,  he  disbursed money,  without
\n            making  proper entries as  also  prior
\n            sanction from the Branch Manager,  and
\n            that  there  were various lapses  with
\n            regard  to  money  transactions   with
\n            reference   to  payments  to   various
\n            persons   irregularly,  by  means   of
\n            which,   he   caused   loss   to   the
\n            respondent bank.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        5.  After  the enquiry, on 14.01.1984,  the  Enquiry<\/p>\n
Officer submitted a report, stating that the charges  framed<\/p>\n
against the petitioner were proved, which was served on  the<\/p>\n
petitioner, who, in turn, submitted his representation.  Not<\/p>\n
satisfied with that, the respondent management dismissed the<\/p>\n
petitioner  from  service  on 24.03.1984  with  effect  from<\/p>\n
28.10.1983, i.e., the date of suspension.<\/p>\n
         6.   Petitioner  preferred  an  appeal  before  the<\/p>\n
Chairman  of  the  respondent  management,  which,  however,<\/p>\n
suffered  rejection.   Thereafter, he raised  an  industrial<\/p>\n
dispute  in  I.D.No.303  of 1986 before  the  Labour  Court,<\/p>\n
Madurai.   On  31.05.1991, the Labour Court,  Madurai,  held<\/p>\n
that  the enquiry conducted by the management was not proper<\/p>\n
and,  as  such,  it was liable to be set aside,  giving  the<\/p>\n
management  an opportunity to let in evidence to  prove  the<\/p>\n
charges  against the petitioner.  On the basis of  the  said<\/p>\n
finding,  proceedings were conducted before the  said  Court<\/p>\n
and, subsequently, the case was transferred to Labour Court,<\/p>\n
Trichy,  and renumbered as I.D.No.8 of 1992.  On 11.07.1994,<\/p>\n
an  award  was passed, dismissing the petition.  Thereafter,<\/p>\n
the petitioner filed Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        7. A learned single Judge, after scanning the entire<\/p>\n
materials,  set aside the first charge viz., use of  abusive<\/p>\n
language and false propaganda by the petitioner, and  upheld<\/p>\n
the  petitioner’s guilt of the second charge, directing  the<\/p>\n
respondent  to  reinstate  the petitioner  in  service  with<\/p>\n
continuity of service, but without back wages.  Hence, these<\/p>\n
appeals by both the parties.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        8.  As far as the first charge is concerned,  it  is<\/p>\n
the  outcry  of the petitioner that in order to curtail  his<\/p>\n
trade union activities, the management has adopted an unfair<\/p>\n
labour  practice, with a vindictive attitude,  to  victimise<\/p>\n
him  and,  as  per the settled legal principles,  bona  fide<\/p>\n
expression of genuine grievances and legitimate criticism of<\/p>\n
the  activities  of  the  management  would  not  constitute<\/p>\n
misconduct  or insubordination.  It is further contended  by<\/p>\n
the  petitioner that the way in which he was treated by  the<\/p>\n
Management would be an example to other employees to  desist<\/p>\n
them from involving in union activities.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         9.   With  regard  to  second  charge,  it  is  his<\/p>\n
contention  that  verification and checking  of  entries  as<\/p>\n
regards  payment  of money are the responsibilities  of  the<\/p>\n
Branch  Manager,  which was admitted by one  Shanmugam,  who<\/p>\n
gave evidence on behalf of the management and that omissions<\/p>\n
and  commissions were already rectified even before issuance<\/p>\n
of  charge sheet; further, the management issued charge memo<\/p>\n
after  a lapse of three years; due to the workload,  two  or<\/p>\n
three entries occurred while he was carrying out them in the<\/p>\n
account books and, at best, they could be termed to be minor<\/p>\n
mistakes, which would, in no way, lead to cause loss to  the<\/p>\n
bank nor affect the goodwill of the bank in the locality.<\/p>\n
        10.  As  for the first charge, this Court  has  gone<\/p>\n
through the communications, emanated from the petitioner  in<\/p>\n
the  capacity  of General Secretary of the Employees  Union.<\/p>\n
Though  they  appear to have contained some harsh  language,<\/p>\n
they would not, in any way, lead to pounce upon a conclusion<\/p>\n
that it is a misconduct, nor do they constitute a basis  for<\/p>\n
framing  the  charges  against the  petitioner.  Hence,  the<\/p>\n
contention of the petitioner that in the capacity of General<\/p>\n
Secretary of the Employees Union, he made the statements  is<\/p>\n
quite reasonable and acceptable.  The discussion with regard<\/p>\n
to  appreciation of the materials on record by  the  learned<\/p>\n
single  Judge is more appropriate and there is  no  need  to<\/p>\n
interfere with his finding in this regard.<\/p>\n
        11.  In  so  far as the charge with  regard  to  the<\/p>\n
lapses  on  the  part of the petitioner is  concerned,  they<\/p>\n
pertain  to money transactions, which is the vital  business<\/p>\n
of  the bank.  If any lapse occurs here and there, it may be<\/p>\n
termed to be an inadvertence of the employee concerned.   If<\/p>\n
such  lapses  continue to recur in the day-to-day  business,<\/p>\n
which  involve  money  transactions, certainly,  they  would<\/p>\n
invite  financial  loss  to  the  bank  like  that  of   the<\/p>\n
respondent  and  its goodwill will also get  impaired.   The<\/p>\n
staff,  who are responsible for the money transactions,  are<\/p>\n
expected  to be more careful in such affairs and,  by  their<\/p>\n
dereliction  in  duty, the ultimate sufferers  will  be  the<\/p>\n
customers.  The learned single Judge has taken much pain  in<\/p>\n
deciding  this issue and come out with a finding, confirming<\/p>\n
the proof of second charge.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        12.  Further,  the  second  charge  pertains  to  11<\/p>\n
occasions of wrong entries with reference to pay-in and pay-<\/p>\n
out  transactions.   The Labour Court,  in  its  award,  has<\/p>\n
elaborately  and  meticulously discussed  this  aspect   and<\/p>\n
reached a conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for<\/p>\n
those wrong entries, which occurred during a period of  nine<\/p>\n
months.  A careful scrutiny of the award of the Labour Court<\/p>\n
in  this regard shows a classical dereliction of duty on the<\/p>\n
part   of  the  petitioner.   The  corollary  of  the  above<\/p>\n
discussion would be, the second charge stands proved against<\/p>\n
the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        13.  The  grounds, on which the petitioner makes  an<\/p>\n
inroad, are thus :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        (a)  The  principles of natural  justice  have  been<\/p>\n
grossly violated, which are evident from two occasions.  The<\/p>\n
then  Special  Officer  one  M.Swamidoss  gave  a  complaint<\/p>\n
against  the  petitioner, alleging that he was assaulted  by<\/p>\n
some  persons, at the instigation of the petitioner, and  he<\/p>\n
passed  the  order  of  dismissal  and  also  acted  as  the<\/p>\n
appellate authority, by confirming the said order.<\/p>\n
        (b) The appointment of one Anaiyappan, advocate, who<\/p>\n
happened  to be the Legal Adviser of the Managemen  and  who<\/p>\n
advised  the  management in legal matters  and  drafted  the<\/p>\n
charges  against  the petitioner and, further,  he  appeared<\/p>\n
before  the  Labour Court, representing the management,  and<\/p>\n
conducted  the proceedings, which would vitiate the  enquiry<\/p>\n
proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        (c)  One  Rangasamy, the then Manager of Karambakudi<\/p>\n
Branch,  also  committed similar mistakes with reference  to<\/p>\n
the   debit  and  credit  entries  and  by  means   of   his<\/p>\n
carelessness, the bank incurred loss and the  funds  of  the<\/p>\n
bank  were  misused  and  that he was  also  suspended  from<\/p>\n
service, but, after enquiry, he was let off with a flea-bite<\/p>\n
penalty   of  stoppage  of  increment  for  one  year   and,<\/p>\n
thereafter, he was reinstated in service.<\/p>\n
        14.  On  grounds  (a)  and  (b),  it  is  vehemently<\/p>\n
contended  by the learned Senior Counsel for the  petitioner<\/p>\n
that during the domestic enquiry proceedings, the principles<\/p>\n
of natural justice were ignored.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        15. In this connection, it shall be stated that  the<\/p>\n
aspect   as  regards  the  appointment  of  one  Anaiyappan,<\/p>\n
advocate, as the Enquiry Officer, and the dismissal order on<\/p>\n
the   appeal  representation  by  one  Swamidoss,  was  duly<\/p>\n
discussed by the learned single Judge.  This aspect was also<\/p>\n
taken  into  consideration at the time  of  determining  the<\/p>\n
quantum of punishment.  It had been rightly observed by  the<\/p>\n
learned  single Judge that it would be a futile exercise  to<\/p>\n
remit the matter back to the Labour Court, for deciding  the<\/p>\n
quantum  of  punishment.   If  it  is  considered  that  the<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice are violated in the conduct of<\/p>\n
the domestic enquiry proceedings, it is to be noted that the<\/p>\n
parties  have adduced evidence before the Labour Court  with<\/p>\n
regard to the said aspect and, hence, no prejudice has  ever<\/p>\n
caused to the petitioner in this regard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        16.  On  ground (c) i.e., with regard to the penalty<\/p>\n
imposed  on  one  Rangasamy, who was  the  then  Manager  of<\/p>\n
Karambakudi  Branch, it is contended by the petitioner  that<\/p>\n
the  said  Rangasamy  also indulged  in  committing  similar<\/p>\n
errors  with regard to money transactions; as many  as  five<\/p>\n
charges  were framed against the said Rangasamy and,  though<\/p>\n
the  charges were proved, only lesser punishment of stoppage<\/p>\n
of  increment  for  one year without cumulative  effect  was<\/p>\n
imposed  on  him,  thereby there is  discrimination  by  the<\/p>\n
management in awarding penalties to its employees.<\/p>\n
        17. In this context, learned Senior Counsel for  the<\/p>\n
petitioner drew attention of this Court to a Division  Bench<\/p>\n
decision  of  this Court in M.Rajamanickam v.  Bharat  Heavy<\/p>\n
Electricals Ltd. and<\/a> another, 1997 (3) L.L.N.550,  in  which<\/p>\n
it was held as follows :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                  “There  is  no iota of  evidence
\n          which  would differentiate the  case  of
\n          the  present appellant from that of  the
\n          other employee Meenakshisundaram.   This
\n          discrimination  is  writ  large  on  the
\n          record  and  the  Court cannot  overlook
\n          the same.  There is no justification  in
\n          treating   the   appellant   differently
\n          without  pointing out how he was  guilty
\n          of   more  serious  misconduct  or   the
\n          degree  of  indiscipline in the  present
\n          case  was higher than compared  to  that
\n          of   Meenakshisundaram.   The  treatment
\n          meted out to the appellant suffers  from
\n          the  vice  of arbitrariness  and  Art.14
\n          forbids   any  arbitrary  action   which
\n          would  tantamount to denial of  equality
\n          as   guaranteed   by   Art.14   of   the
\n          Constitution  of  India.  The  order  of
\n          punishment  is set aside on  the  ground
\n          that   the   penalty  imposed   on   the
\n          appellant   is  hostile  discrimination,
\n          harsh   and  disproportionate   to   the
\n          proved misconduct.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        18.  On this aspect, if the second show cause notice<\/p>\n
issued to the said Rangasamy on 31.12.1987 is subjected to a<\/p>\n
perusal, it shows that he was not directly involved  in  the<\/p>\n
wrong  entries,  but, they were made by the  staff,  working<\/p>\n
under him.  The imputation was that in supervisory capacity,<\/p>\n
he failed to notice those wrong entries and, hence, the bank<\/p>\n
incurred  loss.  But, the charge against the  petitioner  is<\/p>\n
different. It was stated that he himself made wrong entries.<\/p>\n
Hence,   the duties of Rangasamy were not akin to  those  of<\/p>\n
the  petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be construed  that<\/p>\n
he is a similarly placed person like the petitioner, so also<\/p>\n
the  delinquency on the part of the petitioner on  par  with<\/p>\n
that  of  Rangasamy. Therefore, the said decision is  of  no<\/p>\n
avail to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        19.  Conversely, learned counsel for the  respondent<\/p>\n
placed reliance upon a decision of the Honourable Apex Court<\/p>\n
in  Indian  Overseas  Bank v. I.O.B.Staff  Canteen  Workers’<\/p>\n
Union and<\/a> another, 2000 (4) Supreme Court Cases 245, wherein<\/p>\n
it was observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
            “The  single Judge has undertaken  an
\n            exercise,  impermissible for  him  in
\n            exercising   writ  jurisdiction,   by
\n            liberally     reappreciating      the
\n            evidence  and drawing conclusions  of
\n            his  own  on pure questions of  fact,
\n            unmindful,  though aware fully,  that
\n            he  is  not  exercising any appellate
\n            jurisdiction  over the awards  passed
\n            by  a  tribunal, presided over  by  a
\n            judicial  officer.  The  findings  of
\n            fact   recorded  by  a   fact-finding
\n            authority  duly constituted  for  the
\n            purpose  and which ordinarily  should
\n            be  considered to have become  final,
\n            cannot  be  disturbed  for  the  mere
\n            reason   of  having  been  based   on
\n            materials  or evidence not sufficient
\n            or  credible  in the opinion  of  the
\n            writ    court   to   warrant    those
\n            findings,  at any rate,  as  long  as
\n            they  are  based upon some  material,
\n            which  are  relevant for the  purpose
\n            or  even on the ground that there  is
\n            yet    another   view    which    can
\n            reasonably and possibly be taken.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        20. However, in the recent judgment delivered by the<\/p>\n
Honourable Apex Court in MATHURA PRASAD vs. UNION  OF  INDIA<\/a><\/p>\n
[(2007) 1 SCC 437], considering the entire case law  on  the<\/p>\n
subject of judicial review, the Apex Court has categorically<\/p>\n
and in no uncertain terms has ruled:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “When an employee, by reason of an alleged  act<\/p>\n
     of  misconduct, is sought to be deprived of his<\/p>\n
     livelihood, the procedures laid down under  the<\/p>\n
     sub-rules are required to be strictly followed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A judicial review would lie even if there is an<\/p>\n
     error  of  law  apparent on  the  face  of  the<\/p>\n
     record.  If statutory authority uses its  power<\/p>\n
     in  a manner not provided for in the statute or<\/p>\n
     passes  an order without application  of  mind,<\/p>\n
     judicial review would be maintainable.  Even an<\/p>\n
     error  of  fact  for  sufficient  reasons   may<\/p>\n
     attract the principles of judicial review.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        21.   In the case on hand, the learned single Judge,<\/p>\n
exercising  the  power conferred under Article  226  of  the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India, has taken pains to discuss the matter<\/p>\n
at length, which cannot be branded as without power, in view<\/p>\n
of  the  above  judgment  of the Honourable  Apex  Court  in<\/p>\n
Mathura  Prasad  case.   Therefore, this  part  of  argument<\/p>\n
advanced   on  the  part  of  the  Management  is  rejected.<\/p>\n
Moreover,  the letters on behalf of the union  addressed  to<\/p>\n
the   management  appear  to  have  emanated  in  the  years<\/p>\n
1981,1982  and  1983  i.e., long prior  to  the  passing  of<\/p>\n
suspension order on 28.10.1983 and the last letter addressed<\/p>\n
by  the petitioner to the management being dated 06.07.1983.<\/p>\n
Just  because  the petitioner, as General Secretary  of  the<\/p>\n
union,  sent  communications to  the  management  with  some<\/p>\n
unnecessary language, it would not invite framing of charges<\/p>\n
nor   would   it  constitute  a  misconduct.  Further,   the<\/p>\n
management has not attributed any motive on the part of  the<\/p>\n
petitioner,  for  using of such language by the  petitioner.<\/p>\n
In  other  words, the petitioner had no grudge  against  his<\/p>\n
superiors  on  the dates of issuing those letters.  So,  the<\/p>\n
finding  arrived at by the learned single Judge with  regard<\/p>\n
first charge, in our view, is proper.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        22. Learned counsel for the respondent also garnered<\/p>\n
support  from  a  decision  of  the  Apex  Court  in  Suresh<\/p>\n
Pathrella  v.  Oriental Bank of Commerce,<\/a> 2007  (1)  Supreme<\/p>\n
Court  Cases (L&S) 224, for a proposition of law  that  even<\/p>\n
though there was no proof of mandatory loss to the bank,  it<\/p>\n
would  not form a ground for taking a lenient view, for  the<\/p>\n
proof  of  misconduct  of  a bank  officer.   The  operative<\/p>\n
portion of the said decision has been culled out as under :<\/p>\n
                   “22.  In the present case,  the
\n           appellant  acted beyond  its  authority
\n           in  breach  of  the Bank’s  regulation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Regulation   3   (1)  of   the   Bank’s
\n           Regulations   required    that    every
\n           officer of the Bank at all times  takes
\n           all   possible  steps  to  protect  the
\n           interest of the Bank and discharge  his
\n           duties  with utmost integrity, honesty,
\n           devotion  and diligence and do  nothing
\n           which  will  be unbecoming  of  a  bank
\n           officer.   It  is  a case  of  loss  of
\n           confidence in the officer by the  bank.
\n           In  such  a  situation, it would  be  a
\n           futile  exercise of judicial review  to
\n           embark   upon  the  decision   of   the
\n           disciplinary  authority  removing   the
\n           officer  from service, preceded  by  an
\n           enquiry,  and  to direct  the  bank  to
\n           take  back the officer in whom the bank
\n           has   lost   confidence,   unless   the
\n           decision  to  remove  the  officer   is
\n           tainted   with   mala   fides   or   in
\n           violation  of  principles  of   natural
\n           justice  and  prejudice to the  officer
\n           is made out….”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        23. For the foregoing discussions and following  the<\/p>\n
principles laid down in the above said decisions, we are  of<\/p>\n
the  considered opinion that the petitioner who is  expected<\/p>\n
to  maintain  complete devotion and diligence, has  deviated<\/p>\n
from  the  regulations and, hence, the order of the  learned<\/p>\n
single Judge, directing reinstatement of the petitioner with<\/p>\n
continuity of service, but without back wages, is  quite  in<\/p>\n
order  and we find no reason to cause our interference  into<\/p>\n
such well considered and merited order passed by the learned<\/p>\n
single  Judge.  Accordingly, both  these  Writ  Appeals  are<\/p>\n
dismissed.    No   costs.    Consequently,   the   connected<\/p>\n
W.A.M.P.No.3983  of  2003 and W.V.M.P.No.6738  of  2003  are<\/p>\n
closed.   We  make  it  clear that  if  by  this  time,  the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/workman  has attained the age of  superannuation,<\/p>\n
he shall be deemed to have retired from service in the usual<\/p>\n
course on attaining the age of superannuation, for all other<\/p>\n
consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n
dixit\/Rao<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Presiding Officer
\nLabour Court
\nTiruchirapalli.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Pudukottai Central Co-Operative … vs The Presiding Officer on 23 November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.11.2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU WRIT APPEAL Nos.2579 of 2003 and 2068 of 2004 W.A. No.2579\/2003: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Pudukottai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31930","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPudukottai Central Co-Operative ... vs The Presiding Officer on 23 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pudukottai Central Co-Operative ... vs The Presiding Officer on 23 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-09T05:34:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pudukottai Central Co-Operative … vs The Presiding Officer on 23 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-09T05:34:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2967,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007\",\"name\":\"Pudukottai Central Co-Operative ... vs The Presiding Officer on 23 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-09T05:34:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pudukottai Central Co-Operative … vs The Presiding Officer on 23 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pudukottai Central Co-Operative ... vs The Presiding Officer on 23 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pudukottai Central Co-Operative ... vs The Presiding Officer on 23 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-09T05:34:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pudukottai Central Co-Operative … vs The Presiding Officer on 23 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-09T05:34:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007"},"wordCount":2967,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007","name":"Pudukottai Central Co-Operative ... vs The Presiding Officer on 23 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-09T05:34:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pudukottai-central-co-operative-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-23-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pudukottai Central Co-Operative … vs The Presiding Officer on 23 November, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31930","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31930"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31930\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31930"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31930"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31930"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}