C.S. Karnan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner submits that he was working as a Junior Assistant in third respondent/Bank at Valavanur Branch and one Rajendiran was the Manager in Valavanur Branch. One J. Gopal, the Manager took charge on 01.06.1995. As per the statement of Mr. J. Gopal, he asked the petitioner to reconcile the accounts. On 28.08.1995, the Manager, J. Gopal wrote a letter to the third respondent that there was a deficit in savings bank account. He further stated that on 07.09.1995, he wrote a specific complaint about A/c No. 3348 of one Loganathan. On 08.09.1995, the Secretary came to the Bank and wrote a specific complaint against the petitioner and he was placed under suspension on 08.09.1995. The Manager, Rajendiran was suspended on 14.10.1995. A charge memo dated 03.12.1995 was given to the petitioner and the then Manager Rajendiran stating that during the period 21.10.1993 to 27.12.1994, the petitioner made false entries and boosted the figures in S.B.A/c. No. 3348 of one Loganathan, without actual credit and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2,69,470/ - and the Manager Rajendiran, admitted the cheques and approved the false entries. To give explanation, the petitioner requested the third respondent to give the copies of the documents. The then Special Officer by letter dated 19.04.1996, not only refused to give the copies but concluded that the charges were proved and the petitioner had misappropriated the amount. Without taking the report dated 12.03.1996, the enquiry was conducted under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co -operative Societies Act, stating that the petitioner enabled the account holder to withdraw money into consideration. By order dated 25.10.1996, both the petitioner and said Rajendiran were removed from service. Both filed revision before the Joint Registrar of Co -operative Societies, Villupuram against the order of dismissal. The revision filed by the Manager Rajendiran was taken up separately and the same was allowed on 30.03.1999. The Manager was reinstated on 21.04.1999. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Joint Registrar, Co -operative Societies. Against the said order, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 14678 of 1999 before this Court. By order dated 29.03.2004, this Court allowed the writ petition No. 14678 of 1999 filed by the petitioner and quashed the order dated 25.10.1996 passed by the third respondent dismissing the petitioner from service. The third respondent filed W.A. No. 3416 of 2004 and this Court passed the order on 05.03.2008 directing the third respondent to give the documents and to proceed in accordance with statutory provisions. From the orders, it is clear that the order passed by the third respondent dismissing the petitioner from service was quashed by this Court.
(2.) THE petitioner further submits that as the third respondent did not pass any order, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 17.03.2008 enclosing the copy of the order dated 05.03.2008, passed by this Court in W.A. No. 3416 of 2004 and requested the third respondent to reinstate the petitioner. After a gap of seven weeks, the third respondent issued a reply dated 09.05.2008, stating that there was no specific direction in the order passed by this Court to reinstate the petitioner. The petitioner sent a Rejoinder dated 14.05.2008 stating that no specific direction is necessary, because the fundamental and basic principle of law is that once the dismissal order was quashed, the Management had to pass orders and the Management cannot initiate or conduct Departmental Proceedings against a person, who was not in service. After the receipt of the documents, the petitioner gave an explanation to the charge memo. The petitioner's explanation to the charge memo was neither considered nor any reply was sent to the specific question about the illegality of the enquiry without revoking the order of dismissal dated 25.10.1996 as per the order of this Court dated 29.03.2004 passed in W.P. No. 14678 of 1999 and confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 05.03.2008 passed in W.A. No. 3416 of 2004. The third respondent sent a letter dated 05.07.2008 and informed him that an Enquiry Officer was appointed. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 18062 of 2008 on the file of this Court, forbearing the third respondent from conducting the enquiry, without revoking the order of dismissal. This Court by order dated 07.12.2009 allowed the writ petition in W.P. No. 18062 of 2008 and issued the following directions to the third respondent/Management: - - "Therefore, the Court is of the constrained view that the writ petition deserved to be allowed by forbearing the first respondent to conduct the domestic enquiry against the petitioner without reinstating the petitioner into service. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereupon, the first respondent is entitled to proceed in accordance with law on the basis of the order No. 1 of 2008, dated 05.07.2008." The petitioner further submits that the third respondent passed an order dated 08.03.2010 received by the petitioner on 09.03.2010 stating that the petitioner was reinstated into service with effect from the forenoon on 08.03.2010. The petitioner was neither allowed to join duty nor a joining report was received by the third respondent. The Management sent another letter bearing Na.Ka. No. 2/2010 on 08.03.2010, along with the letter bearing No. Na.Ka. No. 1/2010. (Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been reproduced.) After the receipt of the said orders on 09.03.2010, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent requesting the respondent to pay the subsistence allowance as per the bye -laws from 25.10.1996 to 08.03.2010. The respondent/Management did not pass any orders but called upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry to be held on 20.03.2010. The petitioner sent a representation dated 17.03.2010 to the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tindivanam enclosing the letter dated 09.03.2010 sent to the third respondent requesting them to pay the subsistence allowance and asked the Deputy Registrar to direct the third respondent to pay the subsistence allowance. Without passing any order on the above letters, the enquiry was conducted and concluded by the respondent.
(3.) THE petitioner further submits that on the failure of the third respondent/Management to pay the subsistence allowance for the period from 25.10.1996 to 08.03.2010, the petitioner filed the petition to pay subsistence allowance on the file of the second respondent. After receipt of the notice in the petition, the third respondent filed writ petition in W.P. No. 12665 of 2010 against the second respondent for proceeding with the enquiry as the petition was not filed within one year as per Section 4 of the Payment Subsistence Allowance Act. The petitioner filed a counter and this Court by order dated 27.08.2010 dismissed the said writ petition with costs of Rs. 10,000/ - payable by the third respondent to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. The third respondent filed a counter before the second respondent contending that the petitioner did not request the Joint Registrar, while filing his revision regarding payment of Subsistence Allowance and the petitioner failed to make the request when he filed a writ petition against the order of the Joint Registrar. The further statement that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 25.10.1996 and the petitioner is very particular for his reinstatement goes to prove the falsity of the allegation.;