Non-Filing Of Revision Within The Time Limit Is Not A Ground For Rejecting The Representation Of A Temporary Employee

By - Sachin Priya Daniel on July 27, 2022

On 22.04.2022, Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the matter of K. Murugan vs. The Registrar, The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies and 4 others have directed the Special Officer (the fifth respondent) to conduct a fresh enquiry either by permitting the petitioner to rejoin duty or by placing him under suspension.

In the Writ Petition No. 25505 of 2009, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.84395/09 and set aside the Na.Ka.No. Nil, dated 20.05.1999 and therefore consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner as a grocer.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was a temporary employee of the fifth respondent co-operative bank. The petitioner was accused of allegedly misappropriating funds and when asked to return the amount misappropriated, he refused to do so. An order was passed on 20.05.1999 removing the petitioner from service based on the above grounds. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner approached the Registrar (first respondent) with representation on 07.09.2008, but no action was taken for the same. He further filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 13837 of 2009 before the Hon'ble Madras High Court whereby an order was passed on 22.07.2009 which directed the Registrar to pass orders based on the petitioner's representation. The Registrar considered the representation and by the challenged order in this particular writ petition, he rejected the same. The petitioner in this writ petition is of the opinion that the co-operative bank was bound to conduct an enquiry into the matter and thereby provide an opportunity to the petitioner to refute the allegations against him.

Upon hearing both the parties the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has held that "Even though the petitioner did not submit a revision within the allotted time, the court nonetheless directed that the representation be taken into consideration on the merits and even extended the deadline for resubmitting the representation by ten days in an order dated 22.07.2009. Even though he was a temporary employee the respondents are mandated to follow the procedure mandated by law. The impugned orders dated 12.09.2009 and 20.05.1999 have been set aside and the Special Officer is directed to proceed from the stage of issuing a charge memo and conduct the enquiry afresh and take a decision in accordance with the law in the matter, either by permitting the petitioner to re-join duty or by placing him under suspension and such process should be completed in a period of three months."

Upon hearing the submissions made by both the parties, the Supreme Court of India has held that "Adverting to the facts of the instant case, at the time of attestation form filled by the appellant, the criminal case was already registered against him, but it may be noticed that the alleged victim PW.1 did not support the case of the prosecution and thus the order of clean acquittal came in favour of appellant. Hence, the appeal succeeds and is allowed; the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and the order of discharge are hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service on the post of Constable on which he was selected pursuant to his participation in reference to employment notice no.1/2011 dated 27.02.2011.”


Liked this Article ?

Join our list to receive more such updates

By entering the email address you agree to our Privacy Policy.

RECENTS

King Stubb & Kasiva

Offices In - New Delhi | Bangalore | Mumbai
Chennai | Hyderabad | Kochi | Kolkata | Pune