(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st Respondent in his proceeding R.C.No.10936/2000/A3 dated 24.08.2001 and records of the Impugned order of the 2nd Respondent in his R.C.No.15/99/Tha.Aa. Dated 11.08.2000 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents herein to re-instate the Petitioner in service with back wages, monetary and other service benefits.)

1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records of the 1st Respondent in his Proceedings in R.C.No.10936/2000/A3 dated 24.08.2001 and records of the Impugned Order of the 2nd Respondent in R.C.No.15/99/Tha.Aa. dated 11.08.2000 and to quash the same and further to direct the Respondents to re-instate the Petitioner in service with back wages, monetary and other service benefits.

2. The Petitioner joined as a Salesman on 22.01.1979. He was promoted as Clerk on 01.04.1990 and as Senior Clerk on 01.12.1997.

3. The Petitioner was placed under suspension by the 2nd Respondent based on the direction of the 1st Respondent on the basis that an enquiry into grave charges was contemplated as per proceeding dated 09.03.1993. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued to the Petitioner on 30.09.1999. To the aforesaid charge memo, the Petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the charges. The Petitioner was removed from service by the 2nd Respondent as per proceedings dated 11.08.2000. The Petitioner filed Revision as per Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act to the 1st Respondent and the same has been rejected on 24.08.2001 as per proceedings of the 1st Respondent in R.C.No.10936/2000/A3. As against the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent dated 24.08.2001 and as against the impugned order dated 11.08.2000 of the 2nd Respondent, the Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition before this Court.

4. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner challenged the suspension order passed by the 2nd Respondent by means of filing a Writ Petition No.5801 of 1999 before this Court and this Court has passed the order on 07.04.1999 by inter alia observing that an Enquiry Officer has to be appointed, who is to complete enquiry and pass final orders on merits, of course, after giving reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice, within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and further directed the Respondents to pay the subsistence allowance as per relevant rules and dismissed the Writ Petition without costs.

5. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the suspension order prolonged for more than 16 months and therefore, the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside in view of the direction of this Court to complete enquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, which has not been complied with and moreover, the Petitioner has nothing to do with the misappropriation of the amounts of the Society and the charge memo dated 30.09.1999 is only a vexatious one.

6. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that for the amounts mentioned in the charge memo under various caption, proceedings have been initiated against the staffs concerned viz., Saraswathy, Thangam, N.Kumar, N.Francier and G.Nithiyanandham in the year 1997 itself and therefore, for the same sum of money again the charge memo cannot be issued against the Petitioner.

7. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that for the amounts misappropriated by the Saraswathy (Cashier), she along with her husband have executed a Sale Deed dated 01.12.1997 in respect of the property which is worth about Rs.30 lakhs to the Society and also that Thangam (Fertiliser Saleswoman) for the amounts misappropriated by her, has executed the General Power of Attorney on 10.09.1997 to the Society authorising the President to sell her property wroth of Rs.15 lakhs so as to remit the sale consideration to the Society.

8. A plea of the Petitioner is that recovery proceedings have been initiated simultaneously against N.Kumar (Clerk) and G.Nithiyanandham (Secretary) in the year 1997 and recovered Rs.2,60,000/- from N.Kumar, Rs.1,60,000/- from N.Franciers and Rs.2,70,000/- from G.Nithiyanandham and in all, the Society has recovered Rs.50 lakhs from the Staffs, who misappropriated the funds of the Society and therefore, the question of framing charges against the Petitioner that he caused loss to the Society will not arise.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that Cashier and Secretary alone are dealing with the sanctioning of loans, money etc. to the members of the Society and the Petitioner's duties are only to write the transactions that take place in the Society in the day book and just because the signature of the Petitioner has been found in all the transactions, the Petitioner cannot be said to be a person who is also responsible for causing loss to the Society.

10. Advancing his arguments, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in the enquiry the Petitioner was not to cross examine the witnesses and in order remove the Petitioner, the principles of natural justice have been violated intentionally notwithstanding the fact that this Court has issued direction to conclude the Enquiry after following the principles of natural justice.

11. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contends that the Section 81 Enquiry Report, surcharge proceedings, suspension order etc. will clearly reveal that the Petitioner is not responsible for loss caused to the Society and moreover, the 2nd Respondent ought to have issued the Enquiry Officer's Report to the Petitioner and thereafter, the 2nd Respondent should have called for the explanation from the Petitioner, but the same has not been done which amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the impugned orders of the Respondents 1 and 2 are liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.

12. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects a plea that non supply of Enquiry Report before the issuance of show cause notice has caused prejudice to the Petitioner in preparing his explanation to the show cause notice and also the Petitioner has not been paid the subsistence allowance of 75% of salary with effect from 10.06.1996 and 100% of subsistence allowance with effect from 10.09.1994 and therefore, he has not been in a position to concentrate on the disciplinary proceedings.

13. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites the order of the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos.14054 & 30803 of 1988 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.2103 of 1987 between Ishwari Prosad Gupta V. Union of India and Another wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has inter alia observed as follows:

"In view of the fact that mandatory direction of the Tribunal that the disciplinary proceedings which were then pending should be completed within six months and more than three years and one month have passed by now and the proceedings have not been completed, we quash the proceedings. An employee after retirement cannot be harassed by continuing a disciplinary action of this nature. The Tribunal while disposing of the matter had taken note of the fact that the proceedings had been initiated after retirement and more than two years had passed by then and yet it had not been finalised. Taking that aspect into consideration the direction to complete the proceedings within six months had been given. This should have been sufficient warning to the Administration for early disposal of the proceedings. This is why justice demands the quashing the proceedings. There will be no order as to costs."

14. He also relies on the Division Bench order of this Court in W.P.No.6135 of 2005 dated 18.03.2005 between Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam, Chennai-108 V. S.Nallamuthu and Another wherein at paragraph 3 it is held thus:

"In this case, the Tribunal found that after the direction dated 02.11.2001 in O.A.No.1530/99 by the time it disposed of O.A.No.5079 of 2002, which order is challenged in this writ petition, one year and eight months have already elapsed. Going by the totality of the reasons that weighed in the mind of the Tribunal in quashing the entire proceedings, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the order challenged in this writ petition. Admittedly, the first respondent was due to retire on 30.06.2001 (i.e.) on he attaining the age of superannuation. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected WPMP is also dismissed. No costs."

15. He seeks in aid of the decision of this Court Selvaraj V. M.D.Kattabomman Transport Corporation Limited and others 1999 (1) LLJ 1186 wherein it is held that 'Admission of guilt has to be determined by taking into account total explanation given by delinquent employee and not by picking out of one sentence from explanation.'

16. Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned Additional Government Pleader (Writs) appearing for the 1st Respondent and the Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent that the Petitioner has utilised his position as a Senior Clerk in the 2nd Respondent/Bank and for the deposit made by the members of the Society has created a fake receipts, affixed his fake signature and also entered fake entries in the Registers as a result of which he has caused financial loss to the 2nd Respondent/Bank to an extent of 41,11,500/- and has cheated the depositors and thereby has tarnished the good reputation of the Bank and moreover, the Petitioner has also abetted in regard to the misappropriation of the said amount of Rs.41,11,500/- and thereby affected the good reputation of the Bank and also has loss the confidence of the Bank and the depositors by cheating them and has been responsible for causing heavy loss to the Bank and the charges levelled against the Petitioner have been proved beyond all doubt and accordingly, for the serious misconducts committed by the Petitioner, he has been removed from service as per Order of the 2nd Respondent dated 11.08.2000 and later the 1st Respondent, by means of an order dated 24.08.2001, dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner as per Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and as against the Petitioner the charges levelled against him have been proved in the Domestic Enquiry and later the 1st Respondent has dismissed the Revision Petition by means of an order dated 24.08.2001 and for the serious misconducts committed by the Petitioner like Misappropriation, Breach of Trust, Writing of Fake Documents and False Accounts and also helped the other staffs who have indulged in wrong acts/misconducts and therefore, the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 11.08.2000 and the order passed by the 1st Respondent dated 24.08.2001 need not be interfered with by this Court at this stage of the Writ Petition.

17. The Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent cites the Full Bench decision of this Court T.K.Ananda Sayanam V. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Vellore Region, Vellore and Another 2007 (5) CTC 1 at page 2 wherein this Court has observed as follows:

"An employee of Co-operative Society cannot invoke writ jurisdiction for every alleged or imagined invasion of his rights and the settled position that Applications to secure performance of obligations owed by Government or Society towards its employees or to resolve any private dispute cannot be decided on the basis of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the order suspending a person from post of secretary to society does not amount to infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

18. He also cites the Full Bench decision of this Court K.Marappan V. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal-636 001 and Another 2006-4-L.W.495 at page 515 & 516 wherein this Court has held as follows:

"21. From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge:-

(i)If a particular co-operative society can be characterised as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (applying the tests evolved by the Supreme Court in that behalf), it would also be 'an authority' within the meaning and for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. In such a situation, an order passed by a society in violation of the bye-laws can be corrected by way of writ petition.

(ii)Applying the tests in Ajay Hasia it is held that the respondent society carrying on banking business cannot be termed as an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

(iii)Even if a society cannot be characterised as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, even so a writ would lie against it to enforce a statutory public duty cast upon the society. In such a case, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the society is being treated as a 'person' or an authority' within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution and what is material is the nature of the statutory duty placed upon it and the Court will enforce such statutory public duty. Although it is not easy to define what a public function or public duty is, it can reasonably said that such functions are similar to or closely related to those performable by the State in its sovereign capacity.

(iv)A society, which is not a 'State' would not normally be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but in certain circumstances, a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons as there may be statutory provisions which need to be complied with by all concerned including societies. If they violate such statutory provisions a writ would be issued for compliance of those provisions.

(v)Where a Special Officer is appointed in respect of a co-operative society which cannot be characterised as a 'State' a writ would lie when the case falls under Clauses (iii) and (iv) above.

(vi)The bye-laws made by a co-operative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 do not have the force of law. Hence, where a society cannot be characterised as a 'State', the service conditions of its employees governed by its bye-laws cannot be enforced through a writ petition.

(vii)In the absence of special circumstances, the Court will not ordinarily exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Act provides for an alternative remedy.

(viii)The decision in M.Thanikkachalam V. Madhuranthagam Agricultural Co-operative Society, 2000 (4) CTC 556 is o longer good law, in view of the decision of the seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas case and the other decisions referred to here before.

The reference is answered accordingly. Registry is directed to place the paper before the appropriate bench for its disposal."

19. The Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent relies on the decision of this Court The Musiri Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited, by the Special Officer V. Ranganathan and others 1985 (II) MLJ 67 wherein this Court has held as follows:

"In this case there was no dispute that the documents of enquiry under S. 65 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act were not furnished to the plaintiff. But it is not clear whether during the enquiry under S. 65 of the Act, the plaintiff himself was examined by the Enquiry Officer. There are no records produced in this case to show the terms of reference in respect of enquiry under S. 65. It cannot, therefore, be said that non-finishing of copies of enquiry under S. 65 would have prejudiced the plaintiff, but it should be borne in mind that both the courts held that the domestic enquiry officer acted without jurisdiction not merely because he has not furnished the copies of documents of enquiry under S. 65, but for other reasons also such as violation of principles of natural justice, and not giving an opportunity to the plaintiff, examining the witnesses in his absence and passing an ex parte order ever when he had asked for an adjournment. In these circumstances, the defect in the enquiry proceedings goes to the root of the order and makes it in law void, as such the suit by the plaintiff is quite competent and not barred under S. 100 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 53 of 1961."

20. In the order in W.P.No.17600 of 2008 dated 04.12.2009 between M.Subramanian V. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Villupuram, Villupuram District and another, this Court in paragraphs 8 & 9 has, among other things, observed as follows:

"8. Therefore, if any disciplinary proceedings are already initiated, then the common cadre authority will proceed with the said proceedings as if the order is still in force. In that view of the matter and also to give effect to the order passed by this Division Bench, it has to be stated that the proceedings of the petitioner is deemed to be pending with reference to the misconduct committed by him.

9. Therefore, the 1st respondent is hereby directed to proceed by issuing a fresh charge memo and after calling for explanation, complete the disciplinary action in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed."

21. As far as the present case is concerned, the Petitioner has been given the charge memo dated 30.09.1999 by the 2nd Respondent's memo and that the first charge is that the Petitioner has utilised his position as Clerk and in the deposit made by the members of the Society, he has created receipts and has also affixed his signature falsely and further has recorded false entries in the registers and thereby caused loss to the 2nd Respondent/Bank/Society to an extent of Rs.41,11,500/-. The second charge levelled against the Petitioner is that by his dereliction of duty he has cheated the Society/ Bank's members and the depositors thereby tarnished the image of the Society/Bank.

22. The Petitioner in regard to the fixed deposit bonds and cash certificates [in regard to 40 items of fixed deposit wherein misappropriation has been committed by the Petitioner], he has not obtained the same from the depositors and has also not obtained receipts from them and has also created false records as if on the fixed deposits, loans have been sanctioned and further has created false receipts and signed in them. Further, in the cash book for these transactions he has recorded a false proceeding and thereby has committed misappropriation for a sum of Rs.31,00,900/-.

23. The Petitioner in regard to 40 items of fixed deposit wherein he has alleged to have committed misappropriation the amount comes to Rs.23,03,000/-. In regard to the 14 items of cash certificate, misappropriation committed by the Petitioner the same amounts to Rs.7,97,000/-.

24. In regard to the first charge, the second imputation against the Petitioner is that he is to maintain Savings Bank Account as per allocation of office order pertaining to his performance of duties and in regard to Serial No.1 to 22 beginning from N.Devarajan to Arumugam, the amount of misappropriation committed by the Petitioner in regard to the Savings Bank Account Holders transactions works out to Rs.1,41,700/-.

25. The third imputation for the first charge is that in respect of the items 1 to 14 beginning from the name of depositor R.Vembuli to Tmt.Padmini, the fixed deposit 14 items wherein the misappropriation has been committed by the Petitioner comes to a sum of Rs.7,46,500/-. Also in regard to the cash certificates misappropriation in respect of Kannappa Nayakkar's Account, the sum comes to Rs.80,000/-.

26. In regard to the 16 misappropriation in terms of cash relating to Savings Accounts, the same begins from the name of Savings Bank Depositor Balaraman and it ends with Tmt.Krishnaveni and the amount works out to Rs.73,800/-.

27. In regard to the first charge, the fourth imputation is that the Petitioner has created fake loan documents in respect of two Cash Certificate Holders viz., Tmt.Kasthuri and Kiliammal amounting to Rs.3,20,000/- and Rs.80,000/- respectively and has also created false voucher in which he has affixed his false signature and moreover, has granted loan higher than the deposited amount by the depositors and has also recorded entries in the loan register and in cash book. In short, the charges levelled against the Petitioner is that in regard to the fixed deposit amount of Rs.2,00,000/- relating to Tmt.kasthuri, he has advanced a loan of Rs.3,20,000/- and in regard to Tmt.Kiliammal's fixed deposit cash certificate for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- he has sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,60,000/- besides creating false documents and has also misappropriated the amount thereby caused loss to the Bank.

28. The Petitioner serving as Clerk in 2nd Respondent/Bank/ Society as per Work Distribution Order dated 19.09.1991 and 31.03.1997. He has to discharge his duties and as such, he has been entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining fixed deposit, cash certificate fixed and Savings Bank Account work. He has neglected his duties and has violated the office orders dated 19.09.1991 and 31.03.1997 in regard to Distribution of Work and with ulterior motive to commit misconducts he has joined with the other staff members and by means of conspiracy entered into between them jointly and also connived with each one of the staff members and thereby has caused a financial loss to the 2nd Respondent/Bank amounting to Rs.41,11,500/- by means of misappropriation.

29. The Petitioner has furnished a detailed explanation dated 22.11.1999 denying the charges levelled against him. In his explanation, the Petitioner has, among other things, mentioned that it is not his job to verify the signature of the customer of the Bank or it is not his duty to verify their customer's accounts and also it is not his responsibility to part with the money to the customer and moreover, he has not done that kind of work and he has not acted in regard to the act of misappropriation, false vouchers, false signatures made in the Bank etc.

30. That apart, the Petitioner in his explanation dated 22.11.1999 at paragraph 11 has, among other things, mentioned that the Assistant Secretary of the Bank/Society one Kandasamy has acted as a Full Time L.I.C. Agent of Tiruvallur District and in the absence of Secretary of the Bank, the Assistant Secretary of the Bank is responsible for all actions of the Bank but the said Kandasamy (Assistant Secretary) of the Bank has not supervised the other staff members of the Bank and further he has signed without application of mind in the accounts produced by affixing his signatures and used to go for attending his L.I.C. work and therefore, the Bank's Secretary, Cashier and other Staffs have all joined and have committed an act of misappropriating the amount belonging to that of the Bank and has involved themselves in the cheating act and when the Petitioner has questioned about the same, the Assistant Secretary Kandasamy informed him that all the cheating actions will be foisted against him and therefore, he has been threatened.

31. The sum and substance of the explanation dated 22.11.1999 furnished by the Petitioner is that he is innocent and action has been taken against him though he has not been involved in the irregularities of the Bank and also that no action has been taken against those persons, who indulged in the irregularities of the Bank etc.

32. The Enquiry Officer in the Domestic Enquiry has examined the Management Witness one Sivaprakasam as M.W.1. On the side of the Delinquent/Employee, the Writ Petitioner has been examined as W.W.1. On the side of the 2nd Respondent/Bank, documents Exs.M.1 to M.112 have been marked. On the side of the Delinquent Employee/ Petitioner, no document has been marked. The Enquiry Officer, on an appreciation of available oral and documentary evidence on record, has come to a clear conclusion, by means of his findings dated 03.05.2000, that the Charges No.1 and 2 levelled against the Petitioner have been proved and accordingly, rendered a finding against the Writ Petitioner. Based on the said findings of the Enquiry Officer, the 2nd Respondent/Bank/Society has passed an order dated 11.08.2000 dismissing the Petitioner from service.

33. When the Domestic Enquiry has commenced, the Petitioner/ Employee has accepted the charges while answering the questions. However, in his explanation, the Petitioner has denied the charges, hence, the Domestic Enquiry has been conducted and has been completed.

34. The Enquiry Officer, in his Enquiry Report, has observed that in the Domestic Enquiry held on 19.02.2000. The Petitioner has inspected the vouchers pertaining to misappropriation viz., Exs.M.47 to M.67 and further on 04.03.2000 Exs.M.68 to M.84 have been marked. In the Enquiry held on 18.03.2000, the fake vouchers copies in regard to the loan granted have been inspected by the Petitioner and Exs.M.85 to M.112 have been marked. M.W.1 has also been cross examined by the Petitioner as observed by the Enquiry Officer in the Enquiry Report.

35. Continuing further, the Enquiry Officer has observed that the Petitioner has admitted that he has written 31 fake vouchers and 13 cash receipts. The fake vouchers in regard to Savings Bank Accounts, Fixed Deposit Cash Certificates have been prepared by the Petitioner himself and other staffs have also prepared for which the Petitioner has abetted.

36. As per Society Resolution No.49 dated 19.09.1991 and as per Regulation No.4 dated 31.3.1997, the Petitioner's work, duties have been determined and he has received the copy of the Resolution No.49 dated 19.09.1991 on the same day itself.

37. As against the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the Domestic Enquiry dated 03.05.2000, the Petitioner has filed a Revision Petition and the 1st Respondent, by means of an order dated 24.08.2001, has dismissed the Revision Petition and upheld the order of dismissal passed by the 2nd Respondent.

38. It is contended on behalf of the 2nd Respondent that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner/Employee is not maintainable and that the Petitioner has to approach the Civil Court for seeking appropriate remedy. Also, it is contended on behalf of the 1st Respondent that as against the 1st Respondent/Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. In the present case on hand, the Petitioner/Employee challenges the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 11.08.2000 in removing him from Service/Employment. Further, the Petitioner has filed a Revision against the order passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 11.08.2000 as per Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. As against both the orders referred to above, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

39. It is to be pointed out that a Writ is maintainable even against Private Bodies/Persons/Societies, if they fail to comply with statutory prescriptions.

40. A Special Officer is a servant or agent of the State Government. His actions are actions of the State and as such, he comes within the ambit of Writ Jurisdiction as per decision of this Court A.Natarajan V. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (1981) 2 LW 420.

41. In the instant Writ Petition, the Petitioner takes a plea that the principles of natural justice have been violated on the ground that suspension order in respect of him protracted for more than 16 months and further, the Domestic Enquiry has not been completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5801 of 1999 dated 07.04.1999.

42. It is to be pointed out that when the Writ Petitioner/Employee alleges that there is violation of principles of natural justice in regard to the conduct of Domestic Enquiry by the Enquiry Officer it goes to the root of the matter and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the Writ Petition filed by him is not per se maintainable in law. However, on going through the Domestic Enquiry Officer's findings dated 03.05.2000, it is candidly clear that the Writ Petitioner/Employee has categorically stated that he has no questions to be put to the Management witness (in cross examination) and as such, the Writ Petitioner has not availed the opportunity of cross examining the Management witness M.W.1. Therefore, the violation of principles of natural justice has not been substantiated by the Writ Petitioner, as opined by this Court.

43. In a case of dispute as regards inter se Seniority between two Employees, then, a Civil Suit can be filed or even under the Industrial Disputes Act, a dispute can be raised pertaining to the dismissal from service of the Petitioner.

44. In the instant case, the Domestic Enquiry against the Petitioner has commenced on 08.01.2000 and the Enquiry has been completed on 22.04.2000 and that findings of the Enquiry Officer have been rendered on 03.05.2000. Even though, the Petitioner takes a plea that the order of the suspension in respect of the Petitioner issued by the 2nd Respondent is dated 11.08.2000 and the suspension order for more than 16 months it prolonged and also that this Court has directed in W.P.No.5801 of 1999 by means of an order dated 07.04.1999 to appoint an Enquiry Officer and complete the enquiry and pass final orders on merits, of course, after giving reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner in compliance of the principles of natural justice within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order etc., this will not vitiate the Domestic Enquiry findings rendered by the Domestic Enquiry Officer in a case of misappropriation, cheating levelled against the Petitioner and proved in the Enquiry, his dismissal from service cannot be set aside as a matter of routine/course, as opined by this Court. Likewise, mere prolongation of order of suspension for more than 16 months will not entail the entire Domestic Enquiry Proceedings to be set aside because of the simple fact that the charges of misappropriation, cheating, creating false vouchers, bogus registers, affixing bogus signatures etc. are of very serious nature and in the instant case on hand, the charges levelled against the Petitioner have been proved in the Domestic Enquiry, in the considered opinion of this Court. If the said Domestic Enquiry findings are set aside on technicalities, then, it will be causing injustice not only to customers/ depositors of the Bank but also the people at large, as opined by this Court.

45. Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 speaks of Payment of subsistence allowance to an Employee. As per Section 3(1) of the said Act, an Employee who is placed under suspension, during the period of such suspension, is entitled to receive payment from the Employer as subsistence allowance, an amount equal to fifty percent of the wages which the Employee has been drawing immediately before suspension, for the first 90 days reckoned from the date of such suspension.

46. If the period of suspension exceeds 90 days, but does not exceed 180 days, then, the Employee is entitled to receive, after the said period of 90 days, a subsistence allowance equal to 75% of the wages which he has been drawing immediately before his suspension. Where the period of suspension is exceeds 180 days, then, the Employee is entitled to receive wages in full which the Employee has been drawing immediately before his suspension etc.

47. Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 refers to Recovery of money due from an Employer.

48. If subsistence allowance are not paid, then, it is open to the Petitioner to claim the same by filing necessary application before the authority concerned in the manner known to law.

49. Apart from the above, it is to be pointed out that for a quantum of punishment, it is not the quantum of amount misappropriated, is a vital factor but on the contrary, Lack of Fidelity and Loss of Confidence are the prime factors, as viewed by this Court. The case of Misappropriation, Loss of Confidence, Lack of Fidelity and Dishonesty etc. involving Breach of Trust, Creating Fake Vouchers etc., indulged in by the Employee/Petitioner is to be dealt with by firm hand. Otherwise, it may not send right signals to other erring Employees like that of the Petitioner. If an act of misappropriation of either small or large amount is established against an Employee, then, his reinstatement is an unwarranted one.

50. The dismissal of the Writ Petitioner from service in regard to the charges proved against him is a justifiable one based on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

51. An imposition of punishment is primarily for the Disciplinary Authority to look into and only when the punishment is disproportionate to the proved charges or the findings of an Appropriate Authority are perverse in nature, then, a Court of Law can interfere in Writ Jurisdiction.

52. The Petitioner/Employee of the 2nd Respondent/Bank is required to exhibit higher standard of honesty and integrity when he deals with fixed deposits and cash certificates and they are similar to that of money transactions and in a case where serious charges in regard to misappropriation manipulating ledgers etc., are proved, any lesser punishment other than dismissal from service will defeat the ends of justice.

53. The dismissal of the Petitioner in regard to the charges of misappropriation, breach of trust, creating fake records, putting false signatures etc. will be a justifiable one when the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority have relied on the report and also arrived at their own conclusion that the Petitioner has committed an act of gross misconduct.

54. It is to be borne in mind that quantum of amount/money as misappropriated by the Petitioner/Employee is irrelevant, when there is a fiduciary relationship between the Employer and Employee.

55. In the light of detailed qualitative and quantitative discussions as mentioned supra and on an overall assessment of the panoramic spectrum of the present facts and circumstances of the case, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the order of dismissal passed by the 2nd Respondent in respect of the Petitioner dated 11.08.2000 and the order of the 1st Respondent dated 24.08.2001 dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner do not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality and looking at from any point of view, the Writ Petition sans merits and the same fails.

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs on the facts and circumstances of the case.