Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S.VELUSAMY versus THE REGISTRAR OF CO

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S.Velusamy v. The Registrar of Co-operative - W.P.No.21422 of 1994 and W.M.P.No.32652 of 1994 [2002] RD-TN 108 (28 February 2002)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.2.2002

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN

W.P.No.21422 of 1994 and W.M.P.No.32652 of 1994 S.Velusamy .. Petitioner -Vs-

1.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Madras-10.

2.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, Trichy Region

Government Multi Storeyed Office

Building, Khajamalai, Trichy.

3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, Karur Circle

Dindigul Road, Karur, Trichy Dist.

4.The Special Officer

Karur Co-operative Marketing

Society, 81-83, Jawahar Bazar

Karur, Trichy District. .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jayachandran For Respondents : Mr.M.Liaquat Ali RR 1 to 3 : Addl.Govt.Pleader For R4 : Mr.P.Chandrasekaran : O R D E R



This writ petition is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus. The petitioner was working as a salesman in the ration shop from 1979. On 30.1.1991, a charge memo came to be issued to him alleging bogus bills, misappropriation, stock deficit and short weightages. An enquiry was conducted and ultimately the charges were found to be proved and thereafter he was terminated from service. Statutory revision filed by him was also rejected. Under the circum stances, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of termination passed by the fourth respondent dated 28.11.1992 as confirmed by the order of the second respondent dated 28.6.1994 made in Revision Petition No.3 /93 invoking Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and to quash the order of the second respondent dated 28.6.199 4 and also to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as a salesman of the fourth respondent society.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that three other similarly placed persons by name Robin Charles, Manohar and R. Thiyagarajan were not given the same punishment even though they were also found guilty of the same charges as that of the petitioner. With respect to Robin Charles, a charge memo dated 4.01.1993 was issued for charges such as bogus bill, misappropriation and stock deficit. With respect to Manohar, charge memos dated 28.1.1993 and 3.11.1992 came to be issued for charges such as bogus bill, misappropriation and stock deficit. With respect to Thiyagarajan, a charge memo dated 4.01.19 93 was issued for charges such as short weightages, bogus bill and misappropriation. Enquiry was conducted against all these persons and the enquiry officer found them guilty of all the charges.

3. It is revealed by the typed set of papers that by an order dated 16.5.1993, the said Robin Charles was awarded stoppage of two increments. With respect to Manoharan, by an order dated 17.5.1993 stoppage of two increments was awarded. With respect to Thiyagarajan, by an order dated 17.5.1993, stoppage of two increments was awarded. However, with respect to the petitioner alone, an order of termination was passed. All the aforementioned orders were passed by one and the same officer by name Rajagopal, who was the Deputy Registrar/Special Officer.

4. When four different persons were charged with similar nature of violation of rules, punishment awarded also should be the same. One cannot be discriminated against the another. From the records, it is seen that similar charges were framed against all the four persons, but the petitioner alone was given the very severe punishment viz., termination of service. Therefore, this order of termination is to be set aside on the ground of violation of equality in administering the law. This order has been passed by unequal hands. Therefore, the order of termination is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.32652 of 1994 is closed. The petitioner shall be reinstated without back wages, but with continuity of service and all other benefits.

A.K.RAJAN, J.

28.2.2002

kst.

Index : Yes

Website : Yes

To :

1.The Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, Kilpauk, Madras-10.

2.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, Trichy Region

Government Multi Storeyed Office

Building, Khajamalai, Trichy.

3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, Karur Circle

Dindigul Road, Karur, Trichy Dist.

W.P.21422 of 1994 &

W.M.P.No.32652 /1994




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.