Madras High Court · 2025

C.R.P.No.1668 of 2020For R1: Mr. V. Jeevagiridharan Additional Government PleaderFor R2 : Mr. L.P. ShanmugasundaramO R D E RThis Civil Revision Petition is filed praying to set aside the decree and judgment dated 18.11.2019 made in C.M.A(C.S) No.21 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, confirming the order of surcharge passed by the first Respondent/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Attur Circle, Attur, Salem, made in Na.Ka.No.2054/2004/Sa.Pa dated 26.03.2018. 2.For the purpose of disposal of this Civil Revision Petition, certain facts, which are absolutely germane, are briefly elucidated hereunder:- 2.1. The Revision Petitioner was employed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in No. S.425, Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Salem District, from 30.03.1999 to 21.05.2001. During the course of such employment, complaints were received stating that the staff, Officers and Secretary of the Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Salem District created false documents and enriched 2/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 2020themselves as though the members of the Society obtained loans and thereby caused loss to the Society. Based on the complaints from the members of the public, the 1st Respondent, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Attur Circle, Attur, Salem District, ordered a fact finding inquiry to be conducted. Accordingly, an officer of the Co-operative Society was directed to gather evidence regarding the allegation of omission and commission. The Fact Finding Officer proceeded with an inquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, and submitted a report stating that the staff, Officers and Secretary of the Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Salem District, have indulged in creating fictitious documents as though the members of the Society sought loans and thereby created false documents and enriched themselves from the loan amount.2.2. Based on the inquiry report under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, a show cause notice was issued to the Revision Petitioner herein by the 1st Respondent, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Attur Circle, Attur, Salem District, in Na.Ka.No.2054/2004/Sa Pa dated 27.05.2004. Similar show cause notices were issued to 6 other persons as well. The charges mentioned in the show cause notices are as follows:-3/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 2020➔Charge No.1 – From 30.03.1999 to 21.05.2001 misusing the names of the members of the Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Salem District, the Staff, Officers and the Secretary of the Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Salem District, had created forged documents as though the members of the Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Salem District, sought agricultural loan and thereby enriched themselves to the tune of Rs.4,77,600/-.➔Charge No.2 – By forging the signature of 27 members of the Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Salem District, the Staff and Officers had raised loans to the tune of Rs.10,90,000/- without actually extending the loans to the said members and thereby enriched themselves causing loss to the society.➔Charge No.3 – The Staff, Officers and Secretary of the Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Salem District, had raised fictitious fraudulent documents as though they had extended loans to the members of the Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Salem District, and enriched themselves to the tune of Rs.5,74,800/- thereby causing loss to the society.➔Charge No.4 – The Staff, Officers and Secretary of the Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Salem District, had created forged documents as though they had granted consumer loans to the members of the Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Salem District, and raised loans to Rs.2,55,000/- and enriched themselves.➔Charge No.5 – Instead of granting full loan amount, the Staff, Officers and Secretary of the Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Salem District, had originally granted only a part of the loan thereby causing breach of trust and loss to the tune of Rs.2,20,252/-.➔Charge No.6 – Under the pretext of granting agricultural loan, the Staff, Officers and Secretary of the Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, had created documents as though they had granted fertilizers to the members of the Society to the tune of Rs.34,480/-, 4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 2020thereby causing loss to the society.➔Charge No.7 – The Staff, Officers and Secretary of the Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, cheated the members of the Society by obtaining their signatures and not disbursing the central loan of Rs.28,067/-.2.3.Out of these 7 charges, charges 1, 3 and 5 alone were invoked against the Petitioner. The Petitioner submitted his detailed explanation disputing the charges inter alia seeking copies of the fact finding inquiry report to enable him to submit an effective explanation. The 1st Respondent/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Attur Circle, Attur, Salem District, had not complied with the request of the Petitioner by furnishing the report of the fact finding inquiry and its annexures and documents. However, the first Respondent, as Surcharge Officer, relied on the fact finding inquiry report under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and issued a surcharge proceeding without conducting independent inquiry by adopting the fact finding inquiry report as surcharge inquiry. In the surcharge inquiry the delinquents, the Petitioner and other persons are to be furnished with the copies of the report, annexures and the documents relied by the Fact Finding Inquiry Officer, to defend themselves to effectively cross examine the witnesses who had deposed as witnesses in the fact finding inquiry conducted by the Surcharge Officer under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. However, the first Respondent, as Surcharge Officer, had 5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 2020not conducted independent inquiry by examining the same witnesses who had deposed before the fact finding inquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. An independent inquiry under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, should have been conducted after furnishing report of the fact finding inquiry officer and the documents and annexures relied by the Fact Finding Inquiry Officer to the delinquents. Due to not furnishing the documents and annexures, the Petitioner could not effectively cross examine the witnesses. Instead, the 1st Respondent/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Attur Circle, Attur, Salem District, mechanically adopted the inquiry report under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and imposed surcharge penalty on the Petitioner and other similarly placed staff and Officers of the Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Salem District.2.4. Aggrieved by the imposition of surcharge penalty for the charges 1, 3 and 5 against the Petitioner, he preferred a statutory Appeal under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, to the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, who is the Appellate Authority. C.M.A (C.S) Nos.21 was filed by the Petitioner and another Appeal in C.M.A. (CS) No. 25 of 2018 was filed by another aggrieved Staff of the Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 2020operative Credit Society Limited, Salem District. Both the Appeals were taken up for disposal by the learned Principal District Judge, Salem and by a common judgment dated 18.11.2019 dismissed the Appeals. According to the Petitioner, the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, as Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, had confused himself regarding the fact finding inquiry and the surcharge inquiry and accordingly misdirected himself and dismissed the Appeals holding that the Appeals lack merit.2.5.Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner, who was employed as Clerk-cum-Cashier of the Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Salem District, from 30.03.1999 to 21.05.2001 had preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the order dismissing the Appeal in CMA CS. No.21 of 2018 preferred by him and also to set aside the proceeding of the Surcharge Officer imposing surcharge penalty.3. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Revision Petitioner had already sought documents while furnishing explanation, from the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Attur Circle, 7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 2020Attur, Salem District, the 1st Respondent herein. The Revision Petitioner herein had admitted in his surcharge proceedings that for effective adjudication, he required the documents and the inquiry report of the fact finding inquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the observations made by the 1st Respondent/Surcharge Officer/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Attur Circle, Attur, Salem District.“jpU/vk;/,uhn$e;jpud; 21/06/2004y; mDg;gpa[s;s fojj;jpy; jz;lf;fl;lz Kd;dwptpg;g[f;F tpsf;fkspf;f 24/07/2004 tiu xU khj fhy mtfhrk; nfhhpa[s;shh;/14/07/2004y; mDg;gpa[s;s fojj;jpy;. Jd; kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;Lfis Kw;wpYk; kWj;Jk;. jz;lf;fl;lz Kd;dwptpg;ig iftpl typa[Wj;jpa[s;shh;/ nkYk; tphpthd tpsf;fk; mspj;J jk;ik jw;fhj;J bfhs;s 04/05/2003e; njjpa tprhuiz mYtyuJ mwpf;if efYk;. Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;F bjhlh;g[ila Mtz';fspd; efy; nfhhpa[s;shh;/28/08/2004y; mDg;gpa[s;s fojj;jpy;. tprhuiz mYtyhpd; mwpf;if mDg;gg;gltpy;iy/ tprhuiz Jt';fp Fwfpa ehl;fSf;Fs;nsna mtru mtrukhf tprhuiz Kof;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ K:y Mtz';fis ghh;itapl;L gjpy; mspf;f mDkjpf;fg;gltpy;iy/ vd; kPJ nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;l eltof;if vd;id jw;fhj;Jf; bfhs;s nghjpa tha;g;g[ mspf;fg;gltpy;iy/ tprhuiz rl;lj;jpw;F cl;gl;Lk; neh;ikahft[k; Kiwahft[k; tprhuiz mYtyh; nkw;bfhs;sg;gltpy;iy/ tprhuizf;F rk;ke;jg;gl;l Mtz';fs; t';fp brayhsh; tp/re;jpunrfud; (jgeP) trk; ,Ue;J te;jJ/ ,jiz xg;gilf;f nfhhp 23/04/2002 njjpapy; gjpt[ jghypy; jfty; mDg;gp mjid bgw;Wf; bfhz;L ehsJ njjp tiu Mtz';fs; 8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 2020xg;gilf;ftpy;iy/ ,J Fwpj;J j';fSf;Fk; jfty;fs; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,it midj;Jk; ,aw;if epajpf;Fk;. rl;lj;jpw;Fk; KuzhdjhFk; vd bjhptpj;J kW tprhuiz elj;jpdhy; KG xj;JiHg;g[ mspf;fpnwd; vd bjhptpj;Js;shh;/”” 4.In the concluding paragraph of the surcharge proceedings, the Surcharge Officer contradicted the same by stating as follows:@nkYk; ,j;jz;lfl;lz eltof;if bjhl';fp ,Wjp epiy mila[k; tiu gpujpthjpfs; vtUk; chpa gjpy; mspf;fnth jd; kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;Lfis chpa Mtz';fspd; tHp kWf;fnth ,y;iy/@5. Further, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that independently the witnesses who were relied by the Fact Finding Inquiry Officer were not summoned and examined in the presence of delinquents. Before commencing surcharge proceedings, the Fact Finding Inquiry Officers report and statement of witnesses and documents relied by the Fact Finding Inquiry Officer should have been furnished to the delinquents against whom surcharge proceedings were initiated based on fact finding inquiry report, but it was not done. The 1st Respondent/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Attur Circle, Attur, Salem District adopted the fact finding inquiry report, mechanically without application of mind. Thus, the entire proceedings are vitiated and they are liable to be set aside.9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 20206. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Surcharge Officer/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Attur Circle, Attur, Salem District, from page Nos.26 to 98 of the typed set. After the surcharge proceedings concluded, the delinquents preferred statutory Appeals before the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, wherein the grounds were raised, as follows:“4/ jz;l fl;lz eltof;if bjhlu;ghd Mtz';fis Ma;t[ bra;a. rhpghh;f;f nky;KiwaPl;lhsu;fSf;F mDkjp tH';fg;gltpy;iy/ nky;KiwaPl;lhsu;fSf;F vjpuhd Mtz';fspd; efy;fSk; nky;KiwaPl;lhsu;fSf;F tH';fg;gltpy;iy/ ,jdhYk; nky;KiwaPl;lhsh;fs; j';fis jw;fhj;Jf; bfhs;s Koahky; ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sdh;/5/jz;l fl;lz eltof;ifapypUe;J j';fs; jw;fhj;J bfhs;s xU tHf;Fiu"iu cjtpf;F itj;Jf;bfhs;s nky;KiwaPl;lhsh;fs; mDkjp nfhhpa[k; Jiz gjpthsh; mDkjp tH';ftpy;iy/16/Tl;Lwt[ r';f rl;lgpupt[ 81(1)d; fPH; rku;gpf;fg;gl;l tprhuiz mwpf;if efy; nky;KiwaPl;lhsu;fSf;F bfhLf;fg;gltpy;iy/ ,J rl;ltpnuhjkhdjhFk;/17/nky;KiwaPl;lhsu;fisa[k;. rhl;rpfisa[k; Jizg;gjpthsh; gpukhzk; vLf;f bra;J vGj;J K:ykhd cWjp bkhHpapd; nghpy; rhl;rpak; bgwnth. tprhuiz bra;anth ,y;iy/”10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 20207. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner also contended that the learned Principal District Judge, Salem confused himself regarding the fact finding inquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and the surcharge inquiry under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 9 of the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, which is as follows:-“9.After taking into consideration of the submission made on both sides and on perusal of the case records, it is found that after completing enquiry under Section 81 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the surcharge proceedings was initiated against Appellants under Section 87 (1) of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the 1st Respondent has directed the Appellants who are liable to pay the loss amount to the society. The contention of the learned Government Pleader for the Respondents are acceptable one.” 8. Thus, the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, as Appellate Authority under the Co-operative Societies Act, confused himself and is unable to distinguish between the fact finding inquiry and the surcharge proceedings.9. It is an accepted fact that the domestic inquiry and its fact finding inquiry report should be furnished to the delinquents. The statement of 11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 2020witnesses and documents relied by the Fact Finding Inquiry Officer should be furnished to the delinquents. Unless the inquiry is conducted in the presence of the delinquents, the delinquents will not be able to effectively cross examine the witnesses after perusal of the statement of witnesses and documents. The inquiry was conducted under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 without furnishing the documents to delinquents. 10. The learned Counsels appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that to cross examine the witnesses, the principle of fairness, equity and good conscience which governs the domestic inquiry ought to have been adhered to. But in this case, such principles were not followed by the 1st Respondent as Surcharge Officer under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. Therefore, the findings of the Surcharge Officer/1st Respondent herein is vitiated for not following the fair procedures and it is against the principles of natural justice. The learned Principal District Judge, Salem, as Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, without taking note of the above lacuna, confirmed the finding of the Surcharge Officer by confusing himself with the fact finding inquiry report. Therefore, the finding of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, confirming the finding of the Surcharge Office is perverse and illegal 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 2020and it has to be set aside. 11.In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner relied on the following rulings:-(a)TNLJ – 1982 - 18 [P.Duraiswami Naidu Vs. President, Palamedu Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society No.A 649 Madurai and three others].(b)V.K.Arulvelan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pollachi Circle, Market Road, Pollachi -1, Coimbatore District, in W.P.No.21558 of 2009, dated 01.12.2021. 12.The learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent had filed counter in which it is stated as follows:-“With regard to averments made in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal, the following factual information is submitted below:-(a)It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Salem is within the ambit of law and sustainable.(b)It is submitted that the learned Principal District Judge, Salem has passed elaborate speaking order for dismissing the appeal on merits and based facts and records and circumstances of the case.(c)It is submitted that the Deputy Registrar of Coop Societies, Attur Circle, Salem District/Surcharge 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 2020Officer/Respondent/Respondent (for the brevity “DR”) has ordered Inquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Coop Societies Act, 1983 (for the brevity the “Act,1983”) and Enquiry Officer was appointed with instruction to submit report. The Enquiry Officer after conducting proper enquiry submitted his report and recommended surcharge proceedings against the persons (including the Appellant) responsible for the loss caused to the society. Based on the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer's report, the DR has initiated surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Act, 1983 by issuing Notice dated 27.05.2004 to concerned including the Appellant. Challenging the surcharge notice, the Appellant filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.26994 of 2004 and obtained stay and subsequently this Hon'ble Court in its order dated 31.07.2017 has disposed of the W.P.No.26994 of 2004 by directing the Appellant to submit reply to the surcharge notice. Even after the directions of this Hon'ble Court, the Petitioner has not submitted his explanation/written defence statement for the surcharge proceedings. The DR afforded ample opportunity to the Appellant to put forth his defence but the Appellant has not fully utilized it for the reason best known to him. After examining the records, defence statement, deposition, the DR then only passed final orders in the surcharge proceedings vide Na.Ka.2054/2004 Sapa dated 26.03.2018.(d)It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer under Section 81 of the Act, 1983 has categorically marked all relevant documentary evidences in page 14 of his report. In respect of item No.1 (relates to Rs.4,77,660/-) 14 members-borrowers have deposed before the Enquiry Officer that they have not obtained load, the signature/thumb impression found in loan application, loan disbursement register, fertilizer bills and loan disbursement cheques are theirs. In this case, without actually disbursing cash/cheque, the Appellant has put the seal “PAID CASH”. In respect of item No.3 (relates to Rs.5,74,800/-), 21 members-borrowers deposed before the Enquiry Officer that the signature/thumb impression found in loan documents are theirs and they have not obtained loan from the society. Further deposed that the employees by forgery obtained their signature in the loan documents and there was no connection to this transaction. Without actually disbursing loan, the Appellant put the seal “PAID CASH” in 14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 2020the documents thereby indulged in malpractices. In respect of Item No.3 (relate to Rs.2,20,252/-), the member-borrowers deposed before the Enquiry Officer that they have not received the full amount as indicated in the books of accounts of the society but received only lesser amount. Without actually disbursing the actual amount, the Appellant disbursed short amount to the members-borrowers. Even though the Enquiry Officer has issued summons to the Appellants, the Appellant has not appeared and submitted his defence statement before the Enquiry Officer and failed to avail the opportunity given by the Enquiry Officer for the reasons best known to him. As such there were enough oral as well as documentary evidences available against the Appellant and hence taking into the consideration of depositions of the members/Appellants, the learned District Court passed orders dismissing the CMA (CS).(e)It is submitted that though the Appellant is not chief executive and as per bylaw, the Chief Executive is responsible for maintenance of books of accounts, he has to disburse the loan only to members/borrowers but he failed to do by putting the seal “PAID CASH” without actually paying it. In para 11 of the order dated 18.11.2019 in CM (CS) No.21/2018, it was rightly held by the learned District Court that “Even the said Chandrasekaran has put his signature in the documents of the society which is subsequent fabricated and forged. Under these circumstances, the Appellants have no way committed the loss occurred to the society. Further, on perusal of the case records, it is found that the Appellants are working under the control of the 1st Defendant namely A Chandrasekaran. If it is so, the Appellants shall have to inform immediately after knowing the facts to the higher authorities especially to the 1st Defendant namely A.Chandrasekaran. But as per record nothing was informed to the higher authorities' and raised objection to them. The contention raised by the Appellants in this aspect is not at all valid under law. While considering the entire materials of the enquiry report it is found that the Appellants have committed grave loss caused to the society by forging and fabricating the signatures of the members and creating records. These activities clearly shown that the Appellants have committed the offences of misappropriation”15/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 202013. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the 1st Respondent adopted the submission of the learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent. The learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent contended that immediately after show cause notice was issued, the Petitioner herein had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition, seeking to quash the show cause notice. The Writ Petition was dismissed with a direction to participate in the inquiry proceeding. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the inquiry was stayed. Therefore, there had been delay caused due to the conduct of the Petitioner herein. He cannot be allowed to take advantage of the same stating that the inquiry was delayed and therefore, it is vitiated. This Civil Revision Petition has no merit and it is to be dismissed. The learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent contended that the Surcharge Officer had afforded opportunity to the Revision Petitioner to peruse the inquiry report. Therefore, he cannot contend that he was not afforded opportunity. This Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and it has to be dismissed. 14. The learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that the Revision Petitioner had not participated in the surcharge inquiry and he failed to attend the same. Therefore, he cannot be permitted to argue that he was not furnished with the copies that prevented him from effectively cross examining 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 2020the witnesses. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Respondent relied on the unreported decision of this Court in the case of S.Paulraj Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Salem Circle, Salem and Others in W.P.No.37716 of 2016, dated 23.08.2018.Point for Consideration:-Whether the Judgment passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Salem in CMA(CS) No.21 of 2018 dated 18.11.2019 is perverse and is to be set aside?15. Heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first Respondent as well as the learned Counsel for the second Respondent. 16. On consideration of the rival submissions, it is found that the Surcharge Officer/1st Respondent had not conducted independent inquiry as per the reported ruling. The fact finding inquiry report was verbatim adopted by the Surcharge Officer/1st Respondent to impose the surcharge penalties on the Petitioner which is not acceptable. The surcharge penalty was not imposed based on independent assessment of the charge against the Revision Petitioner. The principles of natural justice had not been followed by the Surcharge Officer by affording sufficient opportunity to the Petitioner to put forth his 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 2020defence. The documents relied on by the Inquiry Officer have not been furnished to the Revision Petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the surcharge proceeding was not conducted by following the principles of fairness, equity and good conscience, whereby the Civil Revision Petitioner was prejudiced inasmuch as he could not effectively defend the surcharge proceedings. Before proceeding with the surcharge proceeding, the Surcharge Officer/1st Respondent ought to have furnished the fact finding inquiry report as well as document and enclosures relied by the Fact Finding Officer under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. However, the 1st Respondent/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Attur Circle, Attur, Salem District, mechanically passed orders under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, without conducting independent inquiry and it is vitiated under the principles of natural justice. The learned Principal District Judge, Salem also did not take note of the fact that the Revision Petitioner was not furnished with the documents relied on during the Fact Finding Enquiry and the Surcharge Officer has, without conducting any independent enquiry, verbatim adopted the conclusion reached by the Fact Finding Officer. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Salem is legally not sustainable and it is liable to be interfered with.18/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 202017. Furthermore, the relief sought for in this Civil Revision Petition is no longer res integra. The Petitioner herein along with one Chellakannu had filed C.M.A. (CS) No. 21 of 2018 and C.M.A. (CS) No.250 of 2018 respectively before the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, questioning the validity of the surcharge proceeding bearing Ka.Na.No.2054 of 2004 dated 26.03.2018. The Appeal was dismissed on 18.11.2019 against which CRP NPD No. 2205 of 2020 was filed before this Court by another delinquent by name Chellakannu. This Court, by order dated 06.12.2024, allowed the Civil Revision Petition. The order dated 06.12.2024 reads as follows:-“6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and I have also perused the records. 7. With regard to the first contention that the copy of the enquiry report has not been furnished, I find that the petitioner has raised a specific ground regarding the same even in his memorandum of grounds of appeal as well as before this Court in revision. Unfortunately, the learned Principal Sessions Judge sitting in Appeal over the order of the original Authority did not even discuss the same and straight away proceeded to confirm the order on merits, by holding that the petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs.4,77,600/~ by creating false records and thereby, he had caused loss. It is mandatory to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent officer to enable him /her to meet the same by putting forth appropriate explanation. Failure to issue a copy of the enquiry report denies a fair hearing or opportunity to the delinquent officer. Even with regard to the merits of the claim, though it is alleged that the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.4,77,600/~ when he was the president of Society between 1996 and 2001, the Section 87 order came be passed only on 26.03.2018 after a lapse of 17 years. The proceedings are therefore clearly belated and absolutely no explanation is forthcoming on the part of the respondents for such delayed action. Therefore, even on the ground of delay and latches, the revision petitioner is entitled to succeed.19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 20208. Even with regard to the findings of the original Authority as well as the appellate Court, there is no specific finding that there was any willful negligence on the part of the revision petitioner. In this connection, the learned counsel would rely on the decision of this Court in CRP.No.1491 of 2009, dated 19.09.2017, where this Court relying on decision of the Hon?ble Supreme Court as well as our High Court held that, in surcharge proceedings, it must be proved that an actionable wrong had been committed or omitted, in a deliberate and reprehensible manner, with reckless callousness and supine indifference, without taking due care and caution, which prudent and reasonable man would take in such circumstances. Any failure to do the same, would be fatal to the proceedings. 9. Both the original authority as well as the appellate Court have rendered findings regarding misappropriation and loss being caused by the Society. However, there is absolutely no reason or discussion with regard to the deliberate intention on the part of the petitioner who caused such loss to the Society. Further as already discussed above, the non supply of the enquiry report, coupled with the facts that despite the enquiry report being filed way back on 04.05.2003, there is absolutely no acceptable explanation on the side of the respondent as to why the Section 87 proceedings came to be ordered only after lapse of 15 years, that is, in the year 2018. If really the respondents were serious enough with the allegations made against the petitioner, they should have prudently taken necessary steps to follow the procedure and pass final orders under Section 87 without any unreasonable delay. However in the present case, as already seen above, despite adverse findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner, the respondents have taken up the Section 87 proceedings only in the year 2018 and passed final orders on 26.03.2018. In fact, I find from the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that Section 87 notice was issued way back on 27.05.2004 to the revision petitioner. Admittedly, the revision petitioner did not approach this Court invoking the Writ jurisdiction and it was only the accountant and the cashier who had filed the writ petitions and obtained stay. There was absolutely no legal impediment to proceed with surcharge notice issued to the writ petitioner. Therefore, the only explanation offered by both the respondents that for no fault of the respondents but only because of the stay order granted by this Court surcharge proceedings could not be taken, cannot be countenanced, especially, in so far as the revision petitioner who did not file any writ petition before this Court.20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 202010. For all the above reasons, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and consequently, the judgment and decree in CMA.(CS). No.21 of 2018, dated 18.11.2019 is set aside and the impugned proceedings on the file of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.2054 of 2004 SA.PA. dated 26.03.2018 stands quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.” 18. Thus, it is evident that as against the order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Salem in CMA (CS) No. 21 of 2018, which is impugned in this Civil Revision Petition, another delinquent has filed Civil Revision Petition before this Court in CRP (NPD) No. 2205 of 2020 and it was allowed by this Court. Therefore also, the present Civil Revision Petition is to be allowed.In the light of the above discussion, the point for consideration is answered in favour of the Revision Petitioner and against the Respondent. The Judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem in CMA (CS) No. 21 of 2018 dated 18.11.2019 is perverse.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The decree and Judgment dated 18.11.2019 made in C.M.A (CS) No.21 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Salem, confirming the order of surcharge passed by the 1st Respondent/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 2020Attur, made in Na.Ka.No.2054/2004/Sa.Pa dated 26.03.2018 are set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.09-01-2025cdaIndex : Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation : Yes/NoTo1.The Principal District Judge, Salem,2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Attur Circle, Attur, Salem District.3.The President, No.S.425, Seeliampatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Seeliampatty – 636 107, Salem District.22/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 202023/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1668 of 2020SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP , J cdaOrder made inC.R.P.No.1668 of 202009-01-202524/24