Is compliance with natural justice in a departmental enquiry tested by whether a fair opportunity was afforded, not by the number of show cause notices?
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 — ss.82, 153, 181 — Departmental disciplinary proceedings — Suo motu revision — Natural justice — Delay in initiation —
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 — s.181 — s.153 — Registrar's power to direct an enquiry —
Held: Where a revision under s.153 ends only in an order of remand, the Registrar is empowered to invoke s.181 and direct a Regional Joint Registrar to initiate suo motu revision, conduct an enquiry and pass orders on merits. (¶13)
Principles of natural justice — Departmental enquiry — Fair opportunity, not the count of notices —
Held further: The test is not whether two show cause notices were issued but whether a fair opportunity was afforded to the delinquent officer, who here participated at every stage and defended his case. (¶18, 19)
Departmental disciplinary proceedings — Delay in initiation — Not a ground per se —
Held further: Mere delay does not vitiate a charge memorandum; the nature of the allegations and the cause of delay must be weighed, and delay caused by the employee's own writ proceedings cannot be attributed to the employer. Writ appeal allowed. (¶15, 16)
Is compliance with natural justice in a departmental enquiry tested by whether a fair opportunity was afforded, not by the number of show cause notices?
Yes. Compliance with natural justice in a departmental enquiry is tested by whether a fair opportunity was afforded, not by the number of show cause notices. Here the enquiry officer examined witnesses, the employee participated and defended his case, the enquiry report was furnished with a show cause notice and his explanation was considered before punishment, so the contention of violation was untenable. [¶18, ¶19]
Does mere delay in initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings by itself vitiate the charge memorandum?
No. Mere delay in initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings does not by itself vitiate the charge memorandum. Each case turns on the facts, the nature of the allegations, the mitigating circumstances and the cause of the delay; misappropriation is often traced or concealed for years. Here the delay arose from the employee's own writ petition and the interim order in it, and could not be held against the management. [¶15, ¶16]
Is the Registrar empowered to invoke Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and issue directions in the interest of the society?
Yes. The Registrar is empowered to invoke Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and issue directions in the interest of the society. The earlier revision under Section 153 had ended only in a remand, and on a complaint by the Board of Directors that the President had reinstated the employee and reduced the punishment without fresh deliberation, the Registrar could direct a Regional Joint Registrar to initiate suo motu revision and decide on merits. [¶13]
What did the Division Bench finally decide on the co-operative society employee's termination?
The writ appeal was allowed and the writ order quashing the employee's termination was set aside. The Court held that the grounds on which the writ court had proceeded — violation of natural justice and delay in initiation — were both unsustainable, so the order of the Joint Registrar, Erode confirming the termination stood restored. [¶21]
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
“13. In the present case, the revision order passed by the Joint Registrar, Tiruppur Region is only an order of remand, remanding the matter back to the Management for issuance of show cause notice and to pass final orders. The allegation raised by the Board of Directors are that the elected President and Board passed a Resolution, reinstated the employee and reduced the punishment without considering the gravity of the proved allegations of misappropriation of funds. In those circumstances, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who is the Authority under the Act is empowered to invoke Section 181 of the Act and issue directions in the interest of the Management / Society. Therefore, the order relegating the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Erode Region, to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders is only intended to ensure that a fair enquiry is conducted by affording adequate opportunity to the parties concerned. Thus, the order of the Registrar dated 04.12.2014 was issued in the interest of the Management of the Society and to ensure that the rules of natural justice have been complied with.”
“16. Mere delay per se would not be sufficient to quash the entire charge memorandum in all cases. Each case has to be decided by considering the facts, the nature of the allegations, the mitigating circumstances, and the cause for the delay in initiating the departmental disciplinary proceedings. For example, certain instances of misappropriation of funds are identified or traced out at a later point of time. Certain misappropriation of funds are hided by the employees and it came out only after few years. In those circumstances, delay cannot be a ground to quash the entire Charge Memorandum. The period during which the inspection was conducted and the misappropriation of funds of the Society was identified are relevant factors to be considered in determining the delay in initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings.”
“18. Perusal of the entire documents would show that sufficient opportunities were afforded to the first respondent to defend his case. The Rules of natural justice had been followed and fair opportunity is afforded to the employee to defend his case. It is not about issuance of two show cause notices to be issued, but whether a fair opportunity was afforded to the delinquent officer. The test to be applied is whether the principles of natural justice has been complied with by affording a fair opportunity to the delinquent officer.”
“19. In the present case, at every stage, opportunity was afforded to the first respondent and pertinently, the first respondent availed all the opportunities and submitted his explanations and defended his case. That being the factum, the grounds relating to rules of natural justice raised by the first respondent is untenable. The delay in initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings cannot be attributed against the appellant Management since the first respondent filed a writ petition, in which, an interim order was passed, which resulted in issuance of Charge Memorandum in the year 2011.”
Headnote & Points of Law
You've used your free headnotes this month
The Court's judgment is below in full, free, as always — that never changes. What needs an account is LexStreak's own work on it: the headnote, the questions this judgment settles, and the passages that decide them. A free account opens all of it again.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Under assail is the writ order dated 19.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.18557 of 2015. Dharapuram Public Servants’ Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., is the appellant before this Court. The first respondent instituted the writ petition challenging the order of termination, confirmed by the Revisional Authority under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, in Proceedings dated 29.05.2015.
FACTS IN BRIEF
The appellant is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). A statutory inspection under Section 82 of the Act was conducted by the Competent Authority of the Co-operative Society. Certain irregularities and allegations relating to misappropriation of funds of the appellant Society during the year 1995- 1997 was identified by the Inquiry Authority in their report dated 23.12.2005. Based on the inspection report under Section 82 of the Act, departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a Charge Memorandum was issued on 12.02.2011. In between, the first respondent / employee of the appellant Society approached the High Court seeking copies of the enquiry / statutory reports submitted under Sections 81 and 82 of the Act. In the said writ proceedings, interim orders were passed and after disposal of the said writ proceedings, Charge Memorandum was issued on 12.02.2011. 2.1.A domestic enquiry was conducted and the first respondent participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case. The Inquiry Officer submitted his final report on 13.07.2011. Along with the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the first respondent, seeking further explanation as to why he should not be terminated from service. The first respondent submitted his explanation. The misappropriation of the funds along with interest calculated at Rs.1,22,876.30 was repaid by the first respondent. However, accepting the findings of the enquiry report that the charges are held proved against the first respondent, an order of dismissal from service was issued by the Special Officer / Disciplinary Authority vide Proceedings dated 11.08.2011. Simultaneously, a criminal case was also registered in Crime No.3 of 2011 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tiruppur. The criminal case registered is still pending. 2.2.The first respondent preferred a Revision Petition under Section 153 of the Act challenging the order of dismissal dated 11.08.2011. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruppur Region, vide order dated 03.05.2013 remanded the matter back to the appellant Society with a direction to issue a fresh show cause notice on the findings of the domestic Inquiry Officer and afford opportunity to the first respondent and thereafter, pass appropriate orders within a period of two months. The first respondent was reinstated into the appellant Society subject to the outcome of the pending departmental disciplinary proceedings. A show cause notice was issued in pursuance of the order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruppur Region. The first respondent submitted his explanation. Final order was passed imposing the penalty of increment cut by two years by Board Resolution dated 28.09.2013. 2.3.Not accepting the Resolution of the Board, some of the Board of Directors raised a serious complaint against the conduct of the departmental disciplinary proceedings and the irregularities committed by the President of the Board. They have urged the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to initiate suo motu revision under Section 153 of the Act, against the order of reinstatement and imposing the penalty of cut in increment for two years, by the Board of the appellant Society. 2.4.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies considered the allegations raised by the Board of Directors and passed an order vide Proceedings dated 04.12.2014 directing the Joint Registrar, Erode Region to conduct an enquiry under Section 153 of the Act by initiating suo motu action and by affording opportunity to the parties, pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law. In other words, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies directed the Joint Registrar, Erode Region to initiate suo motu action under Section 153 of the Act and conduct an enquiry and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. 2.5.In pursuance to the orders of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the Joint Registrar, Erode Region has initiated suo motu action and conducted an independent enquiry, by affording opportunity to the first respondent. The first respondent also participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case. Final order was passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Erode Region, on 29.05.2015 confirming the original order of termination issued by the appellant Society vide Proceedings dated 11.08.2011. 2.6.The above said order came to be challenged by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.18557 of 2015, by the first respondent. The writ court allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that rules of natural justice have not been complied with. Secondly, there was an enormous delay in initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings against the first respondent. The alleged incident occurred in between the years 1995-1997. But the Charge Memorandum came to be issued in the year 2011. Taking into consideration the long delay in framing the charges, the writ court allowed the writ petition. Thus, the Management of the Co-operative Society preferred this intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
ARGUMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
The learned counsel Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy appearing on behalf of the appellant would mainly contend that both the grounds relating to non-compliance of rules of natural justice and delay in initiation of revision petition / departmental disciplinary proceedings relied on by the writ court are incorrect. Rules of natural justice have been followed by affording sufficient opportunities to the first respondent and he also participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case. At every stage, opportunity had been afforded to the first respondent. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, on perusal of the serious complaint sent by the Board of Directors, ordered for suo motu initiation of revision petition under Section 153 of the Act, by the Regional Joint Registrar, Erode Region and directed him to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders on merits. The first order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruppur Region, was only an order of remand, and no final decision was taken on the merits and in accordance with law. 3.1.The Joint Registrar, Tiruppur, directed the Management to issue a show-cause notice based on the enquiry report and, after affording an opportunity to the parties, to take a decision in accordance with law. The erstwhile President has hurriedly reinstated the first respondent despite the fact that criminal case was pending against him and the allegations against him was misappropriation of funds of the Co-operative Societies. That apart, the President of the appellant Society, without issuing any show cause notice and conducting a fresh deliberation on merits, imposed the penalty of cut in increment for two years. The punishment imposed is not in proportionate with the gravity of the proved charges of misappropriation of funds and opposed by the other Board of Directors. The Board of Directors, registered a complaint before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who in turn, considering the seriousness of the allegations, directed the Joint Registrar, Erode Region to initiate suo motu revision under Section 153 of the Act and thereafter also, opportunity was afforded to the first respondent. Thus, at any stage, opportunity was afforded to the first respondent and he availed the opportunities and thus, the order of the writ court impugned is infirm. 3.2.Regarding delay in initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings, Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, submits that the said ground has not been raised before the writ court. Thus, in the absence of any ground to that effect, the writ court ought not to have considered the ground of delay.
ARGUMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Mr.S.Sathiaseelan, learned counsel for the first respondent would strenuously oppose by stating that the order of the writ court is based on the grounds of delay in initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings. In this regard, he would rely on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.V.Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India quashed the Charge Memorandum on the ground of delay in initiation. Secondly, he would state that two show cause notices are mandatory for conclusion of the enquiry proceedings by the Inquiry Officer. One show cause notice must be issued calling upon the employee to show cause as to why the proposed penalty should not be imposed. The second show cause notice must be issued seeking his / her further explanation on the findings of the Inquiry Officer. However, in the present case, such a procedure has not been followed and thus, the order impugned is in violation of principles of natural justice and the writ court considering these two grounds, allowed the writ petition. 4.1.Mr.S.Sathiaseelan, would further contend that the alleged amount of misappropriation was deposited along with interest. The Management has modified the punishment of termination into that of cut in increment for two years with cumulative effect. Once the Management had taken a decision to reduce the punishment, the complaint given by the Board of Directors ought not to have been entertained by the Registrar. That apart, the Registrar, instead of relegating the jurisdictional Joint Registrar, directed the Joint Registrar, Erode Region to initiate suo motu revision to conduct enquiry under Section 153 of the Act. Such a decision taken by the Registrar is also infirm. 4.2.Regarding violation of rules of natural justice, Mr.S.Sathiaseelan relied on a judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others Vs. B.Karunakar and Others, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727. Relying on paragraph 25 of the said judgment, learned counsel for the first respondent would reiterate that two show-cause notices are required to be issued after the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings and submission of the enquiry report. He would further urge this Court by contending that the punishment of termination is not proportionate with the gravity of the charges proved. The alleged misappropriation amount along with interest has been repaid by the first respondent. Considering the said aspect, the Management reduced the punishment from termination to stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. Therefore, the order of the Joint Registrar, Erode, confirming the order of termination, is not in consonance with the doctrine of proportionality in the imposition of punishment.
DISCUSSION
The facts presented between the parties, as stated above, are not seriously disputed and are based on the documents placed before this Court. The question to be considered is whether the punishment of termination imposed on the first respondent is in proportionate with the gravity of the proved charges. Secondly, whether the Rules of natural justice have been complied with or not by following the established principles in the matter of conduct of departmental disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the Co-operative Societies. Thirdly, the powers of the Registrar, Regional Joint Registrars to initiate suo motu revision under Section 153 of the Act as well as the powers of the Registrar under the Act. Fourthly, the delay in initiating the departmental disciplinary proceedings, in the present case, would vitiate the entire departmental disciplinary proceedings and the order of punishment or not.
The fact remains that departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a criminal case was registered for the allegations of misappropriation of funds of the Co-operative Societies. Action was initiated based on the inspection report under Section 82 of the Act. The departmental disciplinary proceedings was conducted by issuing a Charge Memorandum vide Proceedings dated 12.02.2011. Opening paragraphs of the Charge Memorandum would show that the first respondent was placed under suspension and he was reinstated into service. At that stage, the first respondent approached the High Court of Madras seeking the copies of the statutory reports submitted under Sections 81 and 82 of the Act. Since an interim order had been passed by this Court, and the statutory report was connected with the allegations of misappropriation against the first respondent, the departmental disciplinary proceedings were kept in abeyance. After the disposal of those cases before the High Court, the charge memorandum was issued in the year 2011.
Pertinently, the writ petition filed by the first respondent in W.P.No.25317 of 2007 was dismissed by this Court on 07.12.2009. Thereafter, the Charge Memorandum came to be issued. 14 charges were framed against the first respondent. An Inquiry Officer was appointed. Inquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry by examining the witnesses and the first respondent participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case. The Inquiry Officer submitted his final report, holding that the charges of misappropriation were proved. The findings of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority / Special Officer. During the relevant point of time, the Special Officer was exercising the powers of the Board under the provisions of the Act. The Special Officer / Board passed final orders in the departmental disciplinary proceedings on 11.08.2011 and imposed the punishment of termination from service. Show-cause notice enclosing the Inquiry Officer’s report was issued to the first respondent. He submitted his explanation to the findings recorded in the Inquiry Officer’s report. Considering the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the explanation submitted by the first respondent, the penalty of termination was imposed.
The first respondent preferred a Revision Petition under Section 153 of the Act, before the Joint Registrar, Tiruppur Region. The Revision Petition was disposed of vide Proceedings dated 03.05.2013 remanding the matter back to the Management for issuance of fresh show cause notice based on the enquiry report and pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months. By that time, the President and Board of Directors were elected and the post of Special Officer was dispensed with. The elected Board reinstated the first respondent in service on 24.08.2013. Further action was initiated in pursuance to the order of the Joint Registrar, Tiruppur Region dated 03.05.2013. Further, a show cause notice was issued. The first respondent submitted his explanation on 21.09.2013. Considering the explanations submitted by the first respondent, the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect was issued by the Board on 28.09.2013.
At this juncture, some of the elected Board of Directors sent a complaint to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, alleging that the President had committed serious irregularities in reinstating the employee, who had been involved in the misappropriation of the funds of the Society. The reduction of the punishment was also questioned by the Board of Directors in the said complaint. The Registrar, independently considering the complaint, passed an order vide Proceedings dated 04.12.2024, directing the Regional Joint Registrar, Erode Region, to initiate suo motu revision under Section 153 of the Act, conduct an enquiry, and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.
Regarding the validity of the order, it is necessary to examine the provisions of the Act. Section 153 of the Act contemplates revision, which reads as under:
“153.Revision. 1. The Registrar may, of his own motion or on application, call for and examine the record of any officer subordinate to him or of the board or any officer of a registered society or of the competent authority constituted under sub-section (3) of section 75 and the Government may, of their own motion or on application, call for and examine the record of the Registrar, in respect of any proceedings under this Act or the Rules or the bye-laws not being a proceeding in respect of which an appeal to the Tribunal is provided by subsection (1) of section 152 to satisfy himself or themselves as to the regularity of such proceedings, or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made therein; and, if in any case, it appears to the Registrar or the Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he or they may pass orders accordingly: Provided that every application to the Registrar or the Government for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within ninety days from the date on which the proceedings, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant. (2)No order prejudicial to any person shall be passed under sub-section (1) unless such person has been given an opportunity of making Iris representations. (3)The Registrar or the Government, as the case may be, may' suspend the execution of the decision or order pending the exercise of his or their power under sub-section (1) in respect thereof. (4)The Registrar or the Government may award costs in any proceedings under this section to be paid either out of the funds of the society or by such party to the application for revision as the Registrar or the Government may deem fit.”
Next question that arises is, when a revision petition under Section 153 of the Act was decided by the Regional Joint Registrar, Tiruppur Region, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies could once again direct the Joint Registrar, Erode Region, to initiate suo motu revision under Section 153 of the Act.
In this context, Section 181 of the Act will come to the aid of the Registrar. Section 181 of the Act provides powers of Registrar to give directions in the public interest, etc. Section 181 of the Act reads as under:
“181.Power of Registrar to give directions in the public interest, etc. (1)Where the Registrar is satisfied that in the public interest or for the purpose of securing proper implementation of co-operative production and other development programmes approved or undertaken by the Government or to secure the proper management of the business of any class of registered societies generally, or for preventing the affairs of any registered society being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members, or of the depositors or the creditors thereof, it is necessary to issue directions to any' class of registered societies generally or to any-registered society or registered societies in particular, he may, by order issue directions to them, from time to time, and all registered societies or the registered society concerned, as the case may be, shall be bound to comply with such directions. (2)The Registrar may, by order, modify or cancel any directions issued under sub-section (1) and in modifying or cancelling such directions may impose such conditions as he may deem fit.”
In the present case, the revision order passed by the Joint Registrar, Tiruppur Region is only an order of remand, remanding the matter back to the Management for issuance of show cause notice and to pass final orders. The allegation raised by the Board of Directors are that the elected President and Board passed a Resolution, reinstated the employee and reduced the punishment without considering the gravity of the proved allegations of misappropriation of funds. In those circumstances, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who is the Authority under the Act is empowered to invoke Section 181 of the Act and issue directions in the interest of the Management / Society. Therefore, the order relegating the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Erode Region, to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders is only intended to ensure that a fair enquiry is conducted by affording adequate opportunity to the parties concerned. Thus, the order of the Registrar dated 04.12.2014 was issued in the interest of the Management of the Society and to ensure that the rules of natural justice have been complied with.
In compliance with the orders of Registrar dated 04.12.2014, the Joint Registrar, Erode Region, initiated suo motu action, issued notice to all the parties, conducted an enquiry and passed final orders vide Proceedings dated 29.05.2015, confirming the order of termination of service imposed by the Management in Proceedings dated 11.08.2011.
Regarding delay in initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings, the answer is made available in the Charge Memorandum itself. The first respondent filed a writ petition seeking the copies of the statutory report filed under Section 82 of the Act. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed by this Court. Only after disposal of the writ petition, further action was initiated and Charge Memorandum was issued in the year 2011. Therefore, the delay cannot be attributed against the Management of the appellant Co-operative Society for initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings.
Mere delay per se would not be sufficient to quash the entire charge memorandum in all cases. Each case has to be decided by considering the facts, the nature of the allegations, the mitigating circumstances, and the cause for the delay in initiating the departmental disciplinary proceedings. For example, certain instances of misappropriation of funds are identified or traced out at a later point of time. Certain misappropriation of funds are hided by the employees and it came out only after few years. In those circumstances, delay cannot be a ground to quash the entire Charge Memorandum. The period during which the inspection was conducted and the misappropriation of funds of the Society was identified are relevant factors to be considered in determining the delay in initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings.
Perusal of the revision order passed by the Joint Registrar, Erode, dated 29.05.2015, would show that the first respondent had been continuously involved in several irregularities relating to dealings with the funds of the Society from the year 1995-1996 onwards. It was also observed that the first respondent had been habitually committing such offences. Several opportunities were granted to the first respondent to deposit the misappropriated amount. But the first respondent failed to avail the opportunities. The Inquiry Officer found that the charges were proved. Based on the proved charges, the then Special Officer issued a second show-cause notice dated 19.07.2011, calling upon the first respondent to show cause as to why the punishment of termination should not be imposed and the first respondent submitted his further explanation to the said show cause notice. On that also, the first respondent did not submit his explanation immediately and instead deposited the alleged misappropriated amount, along with interest to the tune of Rs.1,22,876.30. The Joint Registrar has further recorded that the said amount was deposited at that point of time only to escape from the clutches of the major penalty of termination from service. However, the Disciplinary Authority found that the order of termination will be the appropriate punishment, since the allegations of misappropriation of funds are held proved. Considering the previous conduct of the first respondent in the Society and considering the findings of the Inquiry Officer that the allegations of misappropriations are held proved, the punishment of termination from service, imposed by the Management of the Society was confirmed by the Regional Joint Registrar, Erode, vide Proceedings dated 29.05.2015.
Perusal of the entire documents would show that sufficient opportunities were afforded to the first respondent to defend his case. The Rules of natural justice had been followed and fair opportunity is afforded to the employee to defend his case. It is not about issuance of two show cause notices to be issued, but whether a fair opportunity was afforded to the delinquent officer. The test to be applied is whether the principles of natural justice has been complied with by affording a fair opportunity to the delinquent officer.
In the present case, at every stage, opportunity was afforded to the first respondent and pertinently, the first respondent availed all the opportunities and submitted his explanations and defended his case. That being the factum, the grounds relating to rules of natural justice raised by the first respondent is untenable. The delay in initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings cannot be attributed against the appellant Management since the first respondent filed a writ petition, in which, an interim order was passed, which resulted in issuance of Charge Memorandum in the year 2011.
Pertinently, the Joint Registrar has stated that the allegations relating to misappropriation of funds were happening in the Society from the year 1995-1996 onwards. Therefore, an inspection was ordered under Section 82 of the Act and based on the report, further actions were initiated.
DECISION
In view of the discussions made in the aforementioned paragraphs, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the Writ Court cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.18557 of 2015 is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
Can a registering officer refuse registration under Section 22-B of the Registration Act, 1908 on mere suspicion of forgery?
WA.275/2026 · Madras High Court
Can the State Government withhold an Essentiality Certificate for want of environmental clearance, where that clearance is not a Form 2 requirement?
WA.83/2026 · Madras High Court
Is the prohibited distance of a liquor outlet from a highway reckoned as the aerial distance, not the distance a vehicle must travel?
WP(MD).19368/2026 · Madras High Court
The Supreme Court and the Madras High Court decide something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's and the Madras High Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy