M. Venugopal, J.@mdashThe Appellant (Second Respondent in W.A. No. 812 of 2010) has projected this Writ Appeal as against the order dated 30.11.2009 in W.P. No. 14118 of 2009 passed by the Learned Single Judge.
2. According to the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant (Employee), the Learned Single Judge, while passing the Impugned Order, dated 30.11.2009 in W.P. No. 14118 of 2009 has not delve into the factual details relating to the Appellant''s case before passing the said order.
3. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submits that the order passed by the Second Respondent/Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kancheepuram dated 24.06.2009 is legally valid one because of the fact that he has set aside the entire proceedings as an invalid one in the eye of law.
4. According to the Learned senior counsel for the Appellant in a Domestic Enquiry, a committee cannot be appointed to enquire into the charges as per the procedures of Bye-Laws. As a matter of fact, the suspension order passed by the First Respondent is not in accordance with the procedures adopted by the relevant Bye-Laws of the society. But this aspect of the matter has not been looked into in a real perspective by the Learned Single Judge, while passing the Impugned Order, which has caused serious prejudice to the Appellant herein.
5. The Learned senior counsel for the Appellant submits that in the Impugned Order, dated 30.11.2009 in W.P. No. 14118 of 2009, the Learned Single Judge has directed the First Respondent to treat the period of suspension of the Appellant/Employee as a period on duty, which entitles the Appellant to rejoin the duty. However, in the very same order, a fresh enquiry has been directed to be conducted in accordance with law and during that period the Appellant is entitled to the subsistence allowance in accordance with law, which leads to the presumption that the Appellant is not entitled to join the duty. To put differently, it is the legal contention of the Learned Senior counsel for the Appellant that one portion of the order, in W.P. No. 14118 of 2009 dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Learned Single Judge refers the Appellant''s rights to join the duty and the other portion of the order speaks about the subsistence allowance and therefore the ambiguity in the order is to be removed in the interest of justice.
6. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that the W.A. No. 812 of 2010 filed by the First Respondent (Appellant in W.A. No. 812 of 2010) has been allowed by the Court for the reasons mentioned in the said order. Further, the Appellant (First Respondent in W.A. No. 1412 of 2010) has been directed to proceed with the Disciplinary Enquiry proceedings against the Second Respondent (the Appellant in W.A. No. 1412 of 2010) from the stage of conducting the Disciplinary Enquiry by the sub Committee (appointed in this regard) as per the rules and regulations of the Society in conformity with the principles of Natural Justice, pursuant to the Charge Memo dated 24.02.2009 and the explanation submitted by the Second Respondent dated 06.03.2009,in accordance with law, by providing him with an adequate opportunity. Moreover, the Appellant/Petitioner (The First Respondent in W.A. No. 1412 of 2010) is to complete the disciplinary enquiry proceedings against the Petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the Second Respondent/Secretary (Appellant in W.A. No. 1412 of 2010) to raise factual and legal pleas available to him before the competent authority as envisaged by law.
7. For the sake of convenience we deem it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge, in W.P. No. 14118 of 2009 dated 30.11.2009, which runs as follows:
6. The first Respondent, while going into the correctness of the order placing the second Respondent under suspension, without confining its revision conferred u/s 153 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, on the ground that there was a bias said to have been noticed by the first Respondent, had gone beyond the scope of revisionel jurisdiction and set aside the entire disciplinary proceedings and thereby exceeded his jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the first Respondent. While doing so the Petitioner is directed to proceed afresh as if there was no charge made against the second Respondent by giving him a fresh notice and affording reasonable opportunity. Further, the period during which the second Respondent was under suspension is treated as the period on duty. Further the Petitioner shall pay subsistence allowances in accordance with law. Since the matter is pending for a long time, the Petitioner shall dispose the matter within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. On going through the order passed by the Learned Single Judge, in W.P. No. 14118 of 2009, we are of the considered view that one portion of the order refers to the Appellant''s rights to join duty and the other portion refers to the payment of subsistence allowance in accordance with law. This is certainly an anomaly order because of the simple fact that the Learned Single Judge, while passing the order has held that the First Respondent viz., the Second Respondent in W.A. No. 1412 of 2010 has gone beyond the scope of revisional jurisdiction and set aside the disciplinary proceedings and thereby exceeded his jurisdiction etc., which needs to be corrected by this Court, sitting in Appellate Jurisdiction. As such we allow the Writ Appeal in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.
9. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The portion of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2009 in W.P. No. 14118 of 2008 relating to the aspect of treating the Appellant''s suspension period on duty and further directing the payment of subsistence allowance in accordance with law are set aside. Only to the extent above, the Writ Appeal is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
