Case Note & Summary
The appellant, P. Thiyagarajan, was a Special Officer in a Co-operative Society. A charge memo dated 24.06.2005 was issued by the Deputy Registrar alleging that he had sanctioned illegal loans to himself and to non-members, in violation of rules. An enquiry was conducted, and the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. The appellant appealed to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, which was rejected on 10.07.2008. He then filed a revision before the Government, which was dismissed on 30.11.2009. Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court, which was dismissed on 30.11.2020. The present writ appeal was filed against that order. The appellant's counsel argued that no witnesses were examined during the enquiry, that the loan dues were recovered quickly, and that the major penalty was imposed without proper enquiry. The respondents contended that the procedures under the Discipline and Appeal Rules were followed, and that the appellant had admitted the charges. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found that the appellant had admitted the charges and that the enquiry was conducted properly. The Court held that the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect was proportionate to the gravity of the charges, as the appellant had sanctioned loans for himself and non-members in violation of rules. The Court found no perversity or procedural irregularity warranting interference. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Major Penalty - Stoppage of Increment with Cumulative Effect - The appellant, a Special Officer in a Co-operative Society, was charged with granting illegal loans to himself and non-members. After enquiry, the Joint Registrar imposed the penalty of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Government. The Writ Court dismissed the challenge. On appeal, the High Court held that the punishment was proportionate and the enquiry was proper, as the appellant had admitted the charges and the procedures under the Discipline and Appeal Rules were followed. (Paras 1-6) B) Service Law - Judicial Review - Proportionality of Punishment - The Court held that the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect is a major penalty but was proportionate to the gravity of the charges, as the appellant had sanctioned loans for himself and non-members in violation of rules. The Court found no perversity or procedural irregularity warranting interference. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect imposed on the appellant was valid and proportionate, and whether the disciplinary enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Discipline and Appeal Rules.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2020 in W.P.No.11761 of 2010 is confirmed. No costs.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Co-operative societies
- Stoppage of increment with cumulative effect
- Major penalty
- Enquiry procedure
- Proportionality of punishment
- Judicial review of disciplinary matters
