Challenges to show-cause notices are premature when statutory remedies remain unexhausted.

N. Kalimuthu was appointed as a Salesman in Krishnapuram Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society on 16 June 2014 and was promoted as Attender/Fertilizer Salesman on 1 September 2022.

R. Nagalakshmi had earlier been appointed as a Saleswoman in Pudupatti Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society on 8 May 1998. Following the merger of Pudupatti Society with Krishnapuram Society pursuant to orders passed in 2009, she joined and worked in Krishnapuram Society from 28 January 2010.

The Deputy Registrar issued a notice dated 20 February 2023 to the Administrator of Krishnapuram Society, seeking an explanation as to how Kalimuthu had been promoted while allegedly overlooking Nagalakshmi’s seniority and promotional claim.

Thereafter, the Administrator issued a show-cause notice dated 10 October 2023 to Kalimuthu, asking why his promotion should not be cancelled.

Kalimuthu challenged both notices under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge quashed them, holding that Nagalakshmi had only been deputed to Krishnapuram Society, that she could not claim seniority there, and that the notices were unwarranted.

The Administrator and Nagalakshmi filed separate writ appeals against that decision.

Whether a writ petition challenging preliminary show-cause notices seeking explanations regarding an allegedly irregular promotion was maintainable, or whether it was premature?

Whether the movement of employees from Pudupatti Society to Krishnapuram Society resulted from a merger, with consequential integration of staff and consideration of Nagalakshmi’s seniority for promotion?

Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the notices without requiring Kalimuthu and the Society authorities to submit their explanations?

The Court applied Section 166 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, which empowers the Registrar to enforce the performance of duties by a cooperative society and permits the issuance of a notice seeking an explanation regarding the legality of a promotion.

It also referred to Sections 152 and 153 of the Act, observing that where no statutory appeal is available, a revision lies before the Registrar under Section 153, thereby constituting an efficacious alternative remedy.

Rule 149(2-A) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988, concerning deputation for a limited period, was considered but held inapplicable because the relevant movement of employees arose from a merger rather than deputation.

The Court distinguished R. Seeniyappan v. Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce, (2009) 4 MLJ 955, on the ground that the present case involved an actual merger of societies and integration of staff, unlike a case involving mere absorption of surplus employees.

The governing procedural principle was that a mere show-cause notice does not finally determine rights and ordinarily should be answered before invoking writ jurisdiction.

The Court held that neither impugned proceeding was a final order cancelling Kalimuthu’s promotion. The Deputy Registrar’s notice merely sought an explanation from the Administrator regarding the promotion, while the Administrator’s notice merely called upon Kalimuthu to explain why the promotion should not be cancelled.

Since Kalimuthu had not submitted his explanation, the writ petition was premature.

The Court further found that the learned Single Judge had incorrectly treated Nagalakshmi’s placement in Krishnapuram Society as deputation. The records indicated that Pudupatti Society had been merged with Krishnapuram Society and that its employees had consequently been integrated into the latter Society’s establishment.

Accordingly, Nagalakshmi’s substantially earlier service could constitute a legitimate basis for examining whether Kalimuthu’s promotion had overlooked her claim.

The Court therefore held that the authorities were entitled to seek explanations and conduct further proceedings, subject to the statutory remedies available under the Act.

The writ petition was dismissed as premature.

The authorities were permitted to proceed further after obtaining the necessary explanations from Kalimuthu and the Administrator of Krishnapuram Society concerning Kalimuthu’s promotion as Attender.

No final determination cancelling the promotion was made at this stage.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.