T. Palanisamy and P. Kumaresan Vs. the Registrar of Co-op. Societies, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderr. banumathi, j.1. petitioners in w.p.nos.7731 & 7732/2003 seek writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the proceedings of 4th respondent dated 24.02.2003 reverting the writ petitioner in (w.p. no. 7731/2003) from assistant manager to senior assistant/clerk and writ petitioner in (w.p. no. 7732/2003) from clerk to office assistant and directing for payment of subsistence allowances.2.brief facts which led to filing of writ petition are as follows:(i) writ petitioners who have been working as assistant manager and clerk respectively. on allegations of irregularities and dereliction of duties and responsibilities the writ petitioners were reverted to lower post - assistant manager to clerk and clerk to office assistant. special officer initiated disciplinary action against them and accordingly charge memo dated 30.09.2002 and 29.08.2002 respectively were issued to the petitioners and explanations were called for from them. but petitioners failed and neglected to submit explanations. enquiry was conducted on several dates and petitioners also participated in the enquiry and defended their case. enquiry was conducted as per law and in his report dated 29.01.2003, enquiry officer found that all charges levelled against the petitioners were proved beyond reasonable doubts.(ii) show cause notice dated 03.02.2003 were issued to the petitioners calling for explanation. petitioners submitted their explanations on 15.02.2003 and 14.02.2003 respectively which were carefully scrutinised and found unsatisfactory. special officer has passed the impugned order dated 24.02.2003 reverting the petitioners from assistant manager to senior clerk and from clerk to office assistant which is challenged in this writ petition.3. respondents have filed counter mainly raising plea of maintainability of writ petition. stand of respondents is that in view of efficacious alternative remedy available under section 153 of the the tamil nadu co-operative societies act, 1983 for short (act) the writ petitions are not maintainable.4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners mr. s.r.raghunathan and the learned addl.govt.pleader mr. n.senthilkumar.5. raising strong objection as to the maintainability of writ petitions the learned addl.govt.pleader submitted that in view of efficacious alternative remedy available under section 153 of the act and in view of the decision in marappan's case 2006 (4) ctc 689 the writ petitions are not maintainable.6. submitting that the writ petitions are maintainable learned counsel for the writ petitioners contended that even in marappan's case exceptions are carved out for invoking writ jurisdiction. it was further submitted that in such circumstances writ jurisdiction under article 226 is well maintainable.7. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as against the order of imposing punishment of reduction in rank as per section 75(5)(a) an appeal would lie to the registrar. it was therefore contended that in case if the court holds that the writ petition is not maintainable liberty be given to the petitioners to file appeal before registrar as contemplated under section 75(5)(a).8. under section 75(5)(a) shall lie against any order of competent authority by any aggrieved employee of a common cadre of service relating to censure, stoppage of increment.... reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list etc.,. for invoking section 75(5)(a) the employee must be of a common cadre of service. writ petitioners being assistant manager and clerk cannot be said to fall under common cadre of service so as to invoke section 75(5)(a) of the act.9. as rightly submitted by the learned addl.govt.pleader only revision would lie before the registrar under section 153 of act. under section 153 registrar may either of his own motion or on application, call for and examine the record in respect of any proceedings under the act to satisfy himself as to regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made therein. as against punishment of reduction in rank only revision would lie under section 153 of the act.10. in : (2006)4mlj641 k. marappan v. the deputy registrar of co-operative societies, namakkal, the full bench of this court had held that in certain circumstances a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons including societies. in the instant case, no such exceptional circumstance are made out to invoke article 226 of constitution of india. when the court provides for alternative efficacious remedy the writ petitions are not maintainable.11. in view of efficacious alternative remedy available under section 153 of tamil nadu co-operative societies act, 1983 these writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable.. petitioners are at liberty to file revision before the registrar.. if such revision is filed the registrar shall keep in view the period during which the writ petitions were pending before this court.. petitioners shall file revision before the registrar within one months from the date of this order. on such reversion being filed registrar shall consider and pass orders on the revision within a period of four months from the date of filing of revision.there is no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

R. Banumathi, J.

1. Petitioners in W.P.Nos.7731 & 7732/2003 seek Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of 4th Respondent dated 24.02.2003 reverting the writ petitioner in (W.P. No. 7731/2003) from Assistant Manager to Senior Assistant/Clerk and writ petitioner in (W.P. No. 7732/2003) from Clerk to Office Assistant and directing for payment of subsistence allowances.

2.Brief facts which led to filing of writ petition are as follows:

(i) Writ petitioners who have been working as Assistant Manager and Clerk respectively. On allegations of irregularities and dereliction of duties and responsibilities the writ petitioners were reverted to lower post - Assistant Manager to Clerk and Clerk to Office Assistant. Special Officer initiated disciplinary action against them and accordingly charge memo dated 30.09.2002 and 29.08.2002 respectively were issued to the Petitioners and explanations were called for from them. But Petitioners failed and neglected to submit explanations. Enquiry was conducted on several dates and Petitioners also participated in the enquiry and defended their case. Enquiry was conducted as per law and in his report dated 29.01.2003, Enquiry Officer found that all charges levelled against the Petitioners were proved beyond reasonable doubts.

(ii) Show Cause Notice dated 03.02.2003 were issued to the Petitioners calling for explanation. Petitioners submitted their explanations on 15.02.2003 and 14.02.2003 respectively which were carefully scrutinised and found unsatisfactory. Special Officer has passed the impugned order dated 24.02.2003 reverting the Petitioners from Assistant Manager to Senior Clerk and from Clerk to Office Assistant which is challenged in this writ petition.

3. Respondents have filed counter mainly raising plea of maintainability of writ petition. Stand of Respondents is that in view of efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 153 of the The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 for short (Act) the writ petitions are not maintainable.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. S.R.Raghunathan and the learned Addl.Govt.Pleader Mr. N.Senthilkumar.

5. Raising strong objection as to the maintainability of writ petitions the learned Addl.Govt.Pleader submitted that in view of efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 153 of the Act and in view of the decision in Marappan's case 2006 (4) CTC 689 the writ petitions are not maintainable.

6. Submitting that the writ petitions are maintainable learned Counsel for the writ petitioners contended that even in Marappan's case exceptions are carved out for invoking writ jurisdiction. It was further submitted that in such circumstances writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is well maintainable.

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as against the order of imposing punishment of reduction in rank as per Section 75(5)(a) an appeal would lie to the Registrar. It was therefore contended that in case if the Court holds that the writ petition is not maintainable liberty be given to the Petitioners to file appeal before Registrar as contemplated under Section 75(5)(a).

8. Under Section 75(5)(a) shall lie against any order of Competent Authority by any aggrieved employee of a common cadre of service relating to censure, stoppage of increment.... reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list etc.,. For invoking Section 75(5)(a) the employee must be of a common cadre of service. Writ petitioners being Assistant Manager and Clerk cannot be said to fall under common cadre of service so as to invoke Section 75(5)(a) of the Act.

9. As rightly submitted by the learned Addl.Govt.Pleader only Revision would lie before the Registrar under Section 153 of Act. Under Section 153 Registrar may either of his own motion or on application, call for and examine the record in respect of any proceedings under the Act to satisfy himself as to regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made therein. As against punishment of reduction in rank only revision would lie under Section 153 of the Act.

10. In : (2006)4MLJ641 K. Marappan v. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal, the Full Bench of this Court had held that in certain circumstances a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons including Societies. In the instant case, no such exceptional circumstance are made out to invoke Article 226 of Constitution of India. When the Court provides for alternative efficacious remedy the writ petitions are not maintainable.

11. In view of efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 153 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 these writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable.

. Petitioners are at liberty to file Revision before the Registrar.

. If such Revision is filed the Registrar shall keep in view the period during which the writ petitions were pending before this Court.

. Petitioners shall file Revision before the Registrar within one months from the date of this order. On such reversion being filed Registrar shall consider and pass orders on the Revision within a period of four months from the date of filing of Revision.

There is no order as to costs.