@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D. Hariparanthaman, J.@mdashThe Petitioner was working as Joint Registrar (I.A.A.P.) in the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies from 29.07.1992 to 03.01.1994.
2. One Thiru V. James Stephen worked as a Sub Staff on daily wages in Ramad District Central Cooperative Bank. He was denied employment by the bank. He took up the dispute relating to non-employment before the labour court. The labour court passed an award directing the Bank to reinstate him if he is qualified to hold the post as per law.
3. Based on the award dated 31.05.1993, the Special Officer of the Bank sent proposals to the Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to comply with the award and to reinstate Thiru. James Stephen in his letter dated 26.11.1993. The said proposals was received in the Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 29.11.1993. The Section Superintendent moved the file with his noting on 09.12.1993, recommending reinstatement. The file was sent by various officers and none of the officers wanted any correction in the note put up by the Superintendent.
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour attached to the Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies made his noting as follows:
As per the order of the Labour Court, Thiru V. James Stephen has to be given preference in appointment if he has the requisite qualification, age, etc., prescribed in the bye-law for recruitment. We cannot refuse to obey the Court Order. We can either obey the order or go on appeal.
5. Only in these circumstances, the Petitioner prepared a note dated 23.12.1998. The note was not approved by the Additional Registrar (C). The Additional Registrar returned the file with the remark "speak". After discussion with the Additional Registrar, note dated 31.12.1998 was put up. In the said note, the Additional Registrar made the correction "on a temporary basis". Even this note dated 31.12.1998 of the Petitioner was not approved. The file was returned by the Additional Registrar with the remark "Deputy Registrar (C & B) to speak on 10.01.1994".
6. By that time, the Petitioner handed over the charge of Joint Registrar (I.A.A.P.) on 03.01.1994.
7. After speaking with the Additional Registrar, the Section Superintendent put up a note on 24.01.1994. The Deputy Registrar passed the file on 25.01.1994. The Joint Registrar Mr. Asokan who replaced the Petitioner passed the file on 27.01.1994. On the same day i.e., on 27.01.1994, the Additional Registrar passed the file soliciting the orders from Registrar on the following:
a) The Bank may be permitted to appoint Thiru V. James Stephen as Sub-staff on temporary basis in the Bank as per the observation of the Court, subject to the approval of the Government.
b) An undertaking should be obtained from the incumbent indicating that post is purely temporary and subject to approval by Government and agreeing to forgo the claim for continuance in the Bank in case of non-approval by Government.
c) Simultaneously we may also send necessary proposals to Government in this regard.
8. The Registrar approved the above said noting on 28.01.1994. The Registrar addressed the Government on 12.02.1994 for regularisation of the appointment of Thiru James Stephen without reference to the Employment Exchange as he was in possession of qualification for the post of Sub-staff as per the order of the Labour Court. Ultimately, the Government also gave permission.
9. Whileso, the Petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 15.10.1998 under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules alleging that the Petitioner mis-interpretted the award of the Labour Court as if the Labour Court had directed not to follow the procedure of calling the names from Employment Exchange for the appointment of Thiru James Stephen.
10. The Petitioner submitted explanation dated nil explaining the aforesaid facts. The Respondent passed the impugned G.O., G.O.(D) No. 281 dated 30.11.1998 imposing the punishment of censure after considering the explanation of the Petitioner.
11. The Petitioner filed O.A. No. 4387 of 2000 (W.P. No. 966 of 2007) to quash the aforesaid G.O.281.
12. Heard Mr. D. Aravindan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. Lita Srinivasan, Government Advocate for the Respondent.
13. The Petitioner pu up a note based on the proposals sent by the Special Officer of the Ramanad District Central Cooperative Bank seeking permission to appoint Thiru. James Stephen, Sub-staff as per the award of the Labour Court. The Section Superintendent put a note. The Deputy Commissioner of Labourt attached to the Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies also recommended the proposals and advised appointment of the person as he possessed qualification. It is not in dispute that the concerned person possessed qualification as per the bye-laws.
14. His note dated 23.12.1993 and 31.12.1993 were not approved by the Additional Registrar. By the time the same was approved, he left the post of Joint Registrar on 03.01.1994. One Thiru. Asokan who replaced the Petitioner followed the matter. The Additional Registrar approved the note on 27.01.1994. The Joint Registrar Mr. Asokan also passed the file on 27.01.1994. The note put up by the Additional Registrar to Registrar was extracted as above. The Registrar approved the note on 28.01.1994.
15. More importantly, the Labour Court passed the following award that led to the issuance of the charge sheet:
16. The aforesaid facts make it clear that the Petitioner could not be found fault. But the impugned order found fault with the Petitioner for putting up a note to comply with the award of the Labour Court. His note is taken as misinterpretation of the award by the Respondent.
17. In my considered view, the note put up by the Petitioner could not be taken as mis-interpretation of the award. Every officer namely, Section Superintendent, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Deputy Registrar, the subsequent Joint Registrar, the Additional Registrar, all of them, put up a similar note. Further, the Registrar also approved the note. The Respondent also gave permission approving the note of the Registrar. Hence the impugned order has no basis to find fault with the Petitioner.
18. Furthermore, when the Petitioner pointed out that his successor Mr. Asokan was let off, the impugned order states that the same could not be cited by the Petitioner. It is not known as to why the Petitioner could not cite the same when it is relevant to decide the issue. For all the above said reasons the impugned order is quashed.
19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.
