B. Pitchiah vs The Commissioner of Handlooms and Textiles and The Administrator The Bharathi Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited

K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.—The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 10.10.2003,

confirmed by the first respondent, by order dated 16.07.2004. The petitioner is working as Senior Clerk in the second respondent Spinning Mill.

He was placed under suspension on 02.08.2002, in pursuant to an audit objection. Consequently, a charge memo was issued by the second

respondent on 10.08.2002 stating that in the year 1992-93 certain goods, which were purchased for the Mill, were not brought inside the campus

by the petitioner. Thereupon, after conducting an enquiry, an order came to be passed on 10.10.2003 by the second respondent, whereby, the

petitioner was directed to repay the amount of Rs. 37,238.75 in eleven instalments, being the value of the said goods purchased and not brought

inside the campus. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Revisional Authority, viz., the first respondent. The Revisional

Authority concurred with the finding of the second respondent and rejected the revision by holding that being the Administrative Head, the second

respondent is empowered to order for recovery of the sum from the petitioner and such order is well within his administrative powers. Challenging

the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition before this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel on either side and I have also perused the records carefully.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the second respondent is not empowered under the

Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, to pass the order of recovery and therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. According to the

learned counsel, they should have proceeded only u/s 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, for recovery of the amount and instead of

doing so, the present impugned order cannot be passed by the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if at

all a punishment can be imposed, it can be in the form of dismissal from service or reduction in rank or withholding of increment etc., and not for

recovery of the money.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent supported the impugned order by stating that the impugned order came to

be passed well within the powers conferred on the authorities.

I have considered the above submissions.

First of all, it is to be noted that before passing the impugned order, the second respondent had given adequate opportunity to the petitioner by

issuing charge memo and calling for explanation and thereafter, conducting an enquiry. Therefore, it cannot be said that an opportunity of being

heard was denied to the petitioner. After giving due opportunity of hearing and after finding him guilty of the charge leveled against the petitioner,

the impugned order of recovery came to be passed. It is seen that the petitioner was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 37,238.75 in eleven

instalments. The charge leveled against the petitioner, which is found to be proved, is that having purchased the material for the Mill to the value of

the said sum, he has not brought the same into the factory campus. Thus, in effect, the petitioner instead of bringing the materials into the factory

campus, has misappropriated the same. The impugned order, in fact, referred as if the petitioner should have been removed from service for the

act committed by him. However, taking a lenient view, the second respondent has only passed the order of recovering the money in eleven

instalments. In my considered view, based on certain technical objections, the petitioner cannot escape from the liability to repay the money. He

should thank the second respondent for not dismissing him from service. Therefore, I am of the view that the order of the second respondent,

which has been confirmed by the first respondent, does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. In the result, this Writ Petition is

devoid of merits and therefore, the same is dismissed. No costs.