A charge memo on the same allegations cannot survive after surcharge proceedings are quashed.

M. Anbalagan joined the Co-operative Department as a Junior Inspector in 1985 and was later promoted to the post of Co-operative Sub-Registrar.

In 2014, while serving in the Trichy Region and holding additional charge as Special Officer of several Co-operative Societies, allegations of misappropriation were made against him.

An enquiry was conducted under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, followed by surcharge proceedings.

Those surcharge proceedings were set aside by the High Court in C.R.P.(MD) Nos.947 and 948 of 2016, by order dated 06.04.2017, and the decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Thereafter, the departmental authorities issued a charge memo against Anbalagan concerning the same allegations.

He challenged the charge memo in W.P.(MD) No.13818 of 2017.

The learned Single Judge set aside the charge memo on 01.03.2018, relying on P.R. Govindarajan v. Assistant Director of Fisheries, 2002 (4) LLN 486.

The State authorities filed the present writ appeal, relying on the contrary reasoning adopted in A. Antonydoss v. The Joint Director of Co-operative Societies, W.P.(MD) No.6794 of 2010, decided on 07.06.2019.

Whether a departmental charge memo issued on the very same allegations, after the surcharge proceedings based on those allegations had been quashed and the decision affirmed by the Supreme Court, could be sustained?

Whether the decision in A. Antonydoss, which treated surcharge proceedings and disciplinary proceedings as distinct and independent, justified interference with the Single Judge’s order?

The Court applied Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act concerning the statutory enquiry into the affairs of a co-operative society.

It relied on the binding Division Bench principle stated in P.R. Govindarajan v. Assistant Director of Fisheries, 2002 (4) LLN 486, that once surcharge proceedings founded on particular allegations are quashed, a subsequent charge memo founded on the same allegations and surcharge proceedings cannot be sustained.

The Court emphasised the doctrine of judicial discipline, requiring a learned Single Judge and a coordinate Division Bench to follow an applicable binding precedent unless it is overruled or otherwise displaced.

The later decision in A. Antonydoss could not override the binding Division Bench ruling.

The Court found that the surcharge proceedings against Anbalagan had been quashed and that the order of quashing had attained finality after confirmation by the Supreme Court.

The subsequent charge memo related to the “very same allegations” and was issued after the surcharge proceedings had failed.

Applying the binding principle in P.R. Govindarajan, the Court held that the authorities could not revive the same factual allegations through disciplinary proceedings after the foundational surcharge proceedings had been set aside.

Although the State relied on A. Antonydoss to contend that surcharge and disciplinary proceedings were independent, that later decision could not displace or override the binding Division Bench precedent.

Accordingly, the Single Judge had correctly set aside the charge memo, and no appellate interference was warranted.

It held that the charge memo, being based on the same allegations underlying the surcharge proceedings that had been quashed and whose quashing had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, was unsustainable.

The writ appeal was dismissed, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.03.2018 was left undisturbed, and no order as to costs was made.

The connected C.M.P.(MD) No.1508 of 2022 was closed.