(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent of dismissing the 153 petition of the petitioner vide Na.Ka.No.2281/2022 sa ba (Revision Petition No.2 of 2022) dated 06.10.2022 and consequently the impugned punishment of dismissal order of the second respondent dated 12.01.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full attend benefit.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed by a former Saleswoman of a Fair Price Shop run by a Co-operative Society challenging the order passed by the first respondent herein who had confirmed the order of punishment of dismissal passed by the second respondent.

2. The petitioner herein was working as a Saleswoman in a Fair Price Shop run by Pullampadi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society. She was issued with a charge call memo in January 2021. The petitioner has challenged the said charge memo in WP(MD).No.3563 of 2021 which was dismissed on 23.02.2021. The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 15.03.2021 which was challenged by the petitioner in WP(MD).No.6109 of 2021. The said writ petition was dismissed on 08.09.2021.

3. The petitioner had submitted her explanation on 09.09.2021 denying the allegation. On 04.10.2021, the petitioner had made a request for furnishing of certain documents. An enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted on 26.11.2021 to the effect that the charges as against the petitioner stood proved. The petitioner has given an explanation on 19.12.2021. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the impugned order of dismissal from service was dismissed on 12.01.2022.

4. The petitioner herein had filed WP(MD).No.3292 of 2022 challenging the order of dismissal. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 22.02.2022 granting liberty to the petitioner to file a revision petition under Section 153 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed a revision petition before the first respondent on 05.04.2022. Even though the arguments were completed in May 2022, the orders were not passed. Therefore, the petitioner had filed WP(MD).No.16667 of 2022 seeking a mandamus to pass final orders in the writ petition and the writ petition was disposed of on 28.07.2022 directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months. In compliance with the order of this Court, the first respondent has disposed of the revision on 06.10.2022 confirming the order of dismissal passed by the second respondent. This order is put to challenge in the present writ petition.

5. A perusal of the charge memo issued in January 2021 reveals that the petitioner was charged with the misconduct of distribution of lesser quantity of kerosene to the Family Card holders after making wrong entries in the Card. It was further alleged that she had supplied lesser quantity of ration rice to the card holders, but the Point of Sale machine revealed that higher quantity of rice has been distributed. Based upon 45 fake bills, the writ petitioner is said to have illegally sold the ration rice in the open market.

6. The petitioner while submitting her explanation on 04.10.2021 had not only denied the charges, but demanded three documents. After domestic enquiry had started, the petitioner has addressed a communication to the enquiry officer on 18.08.2021 for furnishing the documents. The enquiry officer had directed the management to furnish those documents. Accordingly, on the second hearing date, namely on 28.10.2021, these documents were furnished to the delinquent. Thereafter, the petitioner has sought one more week time to submit her additional explanation. Without submitting an additional explanation, the petitioner had addressed a communication to the Enquiry Officer on 30.10.2021 requesting him to furnish the copies of the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer has noted that every day the enquiry proceedings are recorded and the petitioner is regularly signing the enquiry proceedings and therefore, the copy of the same cannot be furnished and thereafter, the enquiry officer has proceeded with the enquiry.

7. During enquiry proceedings, the enquiry officer found that a complaint from one G.Selvaraj, S/o.Chinnasamy from Pullampadi has been received from the respondent official. Based upon the said complaint, three Co-operative Sub-Registrars were requested to conduct an enquiry. These three Sub-Registrars have visited Pullampadi Village and they have recorded the statement of one Srimary and Pramman who had categorically stated that lesser quantity of kerosene were distributed. Based upon the statement given by those two individual family card holders, the Enquiry Officer arrived at a finding that Charge No.1 stood proved.

8. As far as the second charge of distribution of lesser quantity of ration rice is concerned, the Enquiry Officer had found that the departmental officers have carried the Point of Sale device in their hand and visited the houses of 41 family card holders. They found that the entries in the Public Distribution System device is completely different from the entries made in the Family Card. Based upon this record, the enquiry officer has arrived at a finding that the charges as against the petitioner that she had distributed lesser quantity of rice under fake bills stood proved. The Enquiry Officer further found that the writ petitioner had committed misconduct and had brought bad name to the Co-operative Credit Society.

9. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the writ petitioner and an explanation was called for. The petitioner had submitted her explanation on 26.11.2021 again contending that certain documents have not been furnished to her and therefore, she was not in a position to submit her proper explanation. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the second respondent herein passed the order of dismissal from service on 12.01.2022.

10. The petitioner had challenged the said order of dismissal before the first respondent under Section 153 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The authorities had recorded the oral and written submissions of either parties and has arrived at a finding that except the contention of non-furnishing of documents, no other defence was taken by the writ petitioner. The first respondent had further found that on an earlier occasion, the writ petitioner had committed a similar misconduct and she was warned. However, she had committed the same misconduct for the second time and therefore, the order of dismissal passed by the second respondent was confirmed by the first respondent.

11. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner had contended that the documents sought for by the writ petitioner have never been furnished by the management. Therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to submit her proper explanation.

12. The facts narrated above will clearly establish that during the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer had directed the management to furnish the records and the petitioner has also received the same.

13. The learned counsel for the respondents by way of additional typed set of papers brought to the notice of the Court that on 12.10.2021, the petitioner had received the document after signing the same. The learned counsel had further pointed out that the delinquency relates to the period of April to June 2020. The other documents which are now been sought does not relate to those periods or the period on which the charge memo issued to the writ petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the writ petitioner that the entire enquiry proceedings got vitiated due to non furnishing of the document is not legally sustainable.

14. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner had submitted that the enquiry was initiated as per the complaint of one G.Selvaraj S/o.Chinnasamy. However, the report of the charges would clearly indicate that they are not able to identify any such person at Pullampadi. Therefore, it is clear that it is a false complaint. When the initiation of enquiry proceedings itself is bad, the enquiry as well as the order of dismissal has to be set aside. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention. Even if it is an anonymous complaint, the authorities are duty bound to conduct an enquiry when they received a serious complaint. Accordingly, the Joint Registrar had directed three Sub-Registrars to conduct a field enquiry. After the field enquiry and receiving statements from two persons, they have arrived at a preliminary finding that the petitioner had distributed lesser quantity of Kerosene. In fact, they have visited 41 households along with POS (point of sale) Machine and had found that there are discrepancies between the records in the point of sales device and the family card. In such circumstances, merely because the authorities are not able to identify the complainant namely G.Selvaraj, the petitioner cannot be absolved.

15. It is the further contention of the writ petitioner that she had already been acquitted from the criminal case and there is a report of the Joint Registrar dated 06.07.2020 that she is not guilty of any charges. A perusal of the order dated 06.07.2020 passed by the Joint Registrar would clearly reveal that it is an order under Section 153 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. A perusal of the said order further reveals that it relates to a delinquency of the year 2016 and a criminal case was initiated as against the petitioner in C.C.No.82 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy and she has been acquitted in the said criminal case. However, the present charge memo has been issued in January 2021. Therefore, acquittal in the criminal case or reinstatement of the petitioner does not have any connection whatsoever to the present allegation as against the writ petitioner. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner has committed similar misconduct for the second time and a charge memo has been issued in January 2021 which has resulted in passing of the order of dismissal.

16. In such view of the matter, it is clear that the order of dismissal as against the writ petitioner is based upon the proper oral and documentary evidence. The only contention that was raised by the writ petitioner relates to non-furnishing of document and the same has been falsified by the records of the enquiry officer. It could be seen from the records that after the documents were furnished on 28.10.2021, the petitioner has never sought for any further documents. The petitioner has only attempted to prolong the enquiry by seeking a copy of the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, the contention raised on the side of the writ petitioner cannot be countenanced.

17. In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.