Can a Secretary at the helm of affairs of a Society absolve his responsibility by attributing the entire misconduct to his subordinates?
Disciplinary Authority — Charge memorandum — Secretary of Society — Misappropriation — Compulsory retirement — Judicial review — Scope of interference —
Disciplinary proceedings — Secretary of Society — Misconduct through subordinates —
Held: A Secretary at the helm of affairs of a Society cannot absolve his responsibility by attributing the entire misconduct to his subordinates; faced with a shortage of staff, he ought to have brought it to the notice of the higher authorities. (¶6, 9)
Disciplinary proceedings — Misappropriation — Admitted shortage of funds —
Held further: Where the delinquent admitted the shortage of funds and the transactions were carried out under his signatures, the finding of misappropriation cannot be faulted, even though he made good the loss. (¶7, 8)
Judicial review — Findings of Disciplinary Authority — Limited scope —
Held further: The scope of interference in judicial review is limited, and findings based on the materials on record that are not perverse cannot be interfered with. Writ Petition dismissed. (¶9, 10, 11)
Can a Secretary at the helm of affairs of a Society absolve his responsibility by attributing the entire misconduct to his subordinates?
No. A Secretary at the helm of affairs of a Society cannot absolve his responsibility by attributing the entire misconduct to his subordinates. Entrusting confidential work to a Night Watchman and a Peon itself showed a failure to discharge his administrative responsibilities; a shortage of staff should have been reported to the higher authorities with a request for more personnel. [¶6, ¶9]
Can a finding of misappropriation be faulted where the delinquent admitted the shortage of funds and the transactions were carried out under his signatures?
No. A finding of misappropriation cannot be faulted where the delinquent admitted the shortage of funds and the transactions were carried out under his signatures. Making good the loss, or calling the shortage an inadvertent mistake of entrusting work to subordinates, does not alter the character of the conduct, which vouchers signed by him showed he had participated in. [¶7, ¶8]
Can disciplinary findings be interfered with in judicial review unless perverse, rendered by an incompetent authority, or contrary to the materials on record?
No. Disciplinary findings cannot be interfered with in judicial review unless perverse, rendered by an incompetent authority, or contrary to the materials on record. The concurrent findings of the Disciplinary, Revisional and Reviewing Authorities rested on the record, and the co-delinquent had received the same punishment. [¶9, ¶10]
What did the High Court finally decide on the Secretary's challenge to his compulsory retirement?
The Writ Petition was dismissed, the Court finding no ground to interfere with the impugned orders of compulsory retirement and the orders rejecting revision and review. No costs were awarded. [¶10, ¶11]
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
“6. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged misconduct was committed by the co-delinquents, namely, the Night Watchman and the Peon. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner could have entrusted such confidential work to the Night Watchman and the Peon. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the aforesaid conduct by itself clearly demonstrates the petitioner’s failure to properly discharge his administrative responsibilities. If there was a shortage of staff, the petitioner ought to have brought the same to the notice of the higher authorities and requested them to depute additional personnel. However, it is not the petitioner’s case that, despite making such a request, no additional person was deputed. Since the petitioner was at the helm of affairs and was responsible for the administration of the Society, he cannot simply absolve his responsibility by attributing the entire misconduct to his subordinates.”
“8. It is also relevant to mention that there is no dispute with regard to the shortage of funds in the Society. When the Society issued the charge memorandum alleging misappropriation, the petitioner having admitted the shortage of funds and made good the loss. Though the petitioner contends that the shortage of amount was due to an inadvertent mistake of entrusting the work with his subordinates and the fact remains that there was a shortage of funds and that the records disclose that the subject transactions were supported by the petitioner’s signatures. Such conduct can only be construed as misappropriation. Therefore, when the petitioner himself has admitted the shortage of funds and when the records establishes that the fact that, the transactions were carried out under his signatures, the finding of the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner was responsible for the misappropriation cannot be faulted with.”
“9. It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner cannot absolve himself of responsibility merely by referring to the misconduct of his subordinates, particularly when the co-delinquent was also imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority, the Revisional Authority and the Reviewing Authority are well-founded. It is relevant to reiterate that, while exercising the power of judicial review, the scope of interference is limited. Unless the findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority are perverse, rendered by an incompetent authority, or contrary to the materials available on record, this Court cannot interfere with such findings.”
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
The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the third respondent in No.Nil, dated 19.09.2019, the order passed by the second respondent in Review Petition No.5938 of 2019, dated 23.11.2020, and the order passed in Na.Ka.No.3832/2022 SA PA, dated 15.03.2023, and to quash the same, and consequently, direct respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.
The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was appointed through the Employment Exchange as a Writer in the third respondent Society on 13.06.1990. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Senior Clerk and subsequently as an Assistant Secretary. Ultimately, he was transferred to the fourth respondent Society and appointed as Secretary-in-Charge with effect from 04.06.2010. While the petitioner was serving as Secretary, he was placed under suspension on 08.11.2018 for alleged irregularities. Thereafter, a charge memorandum was issued on 27.03.2019, alleging misappropriation of various amounts totalling approximately Rs.10,00,000/- and recommending the sanction of a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- in violation of the Society’s guidelines. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memorandum on 20.04.2019. However, the third respondent imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Revisional Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review petition, which was dismissed by the Reviewing Authority vide order dated 15.03.2023.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fourth respondent Society is a large Society and that there was a shortage of staff. Due to the heavy workload, the petitioner permitted the Night Watchman and the Peon to assist him. While so, they committed serious delinquencies without the knowledge of the petitioner. Since the co-delinquents had been working with him for a long period, the petitioner was compelled to repose confidence in them, which they took advantage of and cheated him. It is also his contention that the petitioner had rendered nearly 29 years of service with an unblemished track record. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate. Hence, he prayed to allow the present Writ Petition.
Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for first and second respondents and would contend that, in his deposition, the petitioner had admitted the charges levelled against him and, therefore, he cannot have any grievance with regard to the findings rendered in the domestic enquiry. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that, though the petitioner contends that the co-delinquents had committed misconduct and that the petitioner had made good the loss caused to the respondent Society, the same would, in no way, advance the case of the petitioner. This is because the petitioner had misappropriated the funds of the Society in several transactions in which the petitioner’s signatures were found.
4.1. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that, notwithstanding his failure to properly supervise the Society and his subordinates, the petitioner himself had committed acts of misappropriation. It is his further submission that the petitioner, being the Secretary, was in a fiduciary relationship with the respondent Society and was entrusted with the responsibility of dealing with the Society’s funds. If such conduct is dealt with leniently, it would have wider repercussions and would amount to rewarding the delinquent. Therefore, he would contend that, for such acts of misappropriation, compulsory retirement is the minimum punishment warranted. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders.
I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.
The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged misconduct was committed by the co-delinquents, namely, the Night Watchman and the Peon. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner could have entrusted such confidential work to the Night Watchman and the Peon. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the aforesaid conduct by itself clearly demonstrates the petitioner’s failure to properly discharge his administrative responsibilities. If there was a shortage of staff, the petitioner ought to have brought the same to the notice of the higher authorities and requested them to depute additional personnel. However, it is not the petitioner’s case that, despite making such a request, no additional person was deputed. Since the petitioner was at the helm of affairs and was responsible for the administration of the Society, he cannot simply absolve his responsibility by attributing the entire misconduct to his subordinates.
It is also relevant to mention that, notwithstanding the misappropriation allegedly committed by the co-delinquents, the petitioner himself had misappropriated a substantial amount, approximately Rs.10,00,000/-, and had also recommended for the sanction of a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- in violation of the Society’s Rules. There is sufficient material to establish that the aforesaid transactions were carried out under the petitioner’s signatures. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that misappropriation was committed through his subordinates, the petitioner himself had participated in the misappropriation, as evidenced through voucher signed by the petitioner.
It is also relevant to mention that there is no dispute with regard to the shortage of funds in the Society. When the Society issued the charge memorandum alleging misappropriation, the petitioner having admitted the shortage of funds and made good the loss. Though the petitioner contends that the shortage of amount was due to an inadvertent mistake of entrusting the work with his subordinates and the fact remains that there was a shortage of funds and that the records disclose that the subject transactions were supported by the petitioner’s signatures. Such conduct can only be construed as misappropriation. Therefore, when the petitioner himself has admitted the shortage of funds and when the records establishes that the fact that, the transactions were carried out under his signatures, the finding of the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner was responsible for the misappropriation cannot be faulted with.
It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner cannot absolve himself of responsibility merely by referring to the misconduct of his subordinates, particularly when the co-delinquent was also imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority, the Revisional Authority and the Reviewing Authority are well-founded. It is relevant to reiterate that, while exercising the power of judicial review, the scope of interference is limited. Unless the findings rendered by the Disciplinary Authority are perverse, rendered by an incompetent authority, or contrary to the materials available on record, this Court cannot interfere with such findings.
In the case in hand, as stated hereinabove, the findings rendered by the authorities are based on the materials available on record and cannot be said to be perverse. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 23-09-2026
Does Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 require both a condition to provide basic amenities and the transferee's failure to provide them?
WA(MD).2739/2024 · Madras High Court
Can interest paid on capital borrowed for the purposes of business be claimed as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 once business has commenced?
TC.1301/2008 · Madras High Court
Is expenditure on replacement of machinery revenue in nature under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 where the installed production capacity has not increased?
TC.1100/2007 · 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