AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Raja, J.—The Petitioner herein-Special Officer of Irudhukottai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited at Krishnagiri,
by filing these two writ petitions, challenge the common judgment and decree, dated 19.07.2010, passed by the Presiding Officer, District
Cooperative Cases Appellate Tribunal (Principal District Court), Krishnagiri, in C.M.A (Cs) Nos. 18 and 27 of 2005, whereby and where-under,
the 2nd Respondent herein who passed the surcharge proceedings, dated 05.08.2004, in Surcharge Case No. 2 of 2001 as against one K.
Nagarajan and K. Chandran/R-3 in these Writ Petitions, was directed, while remitting the case back, to consider the matter afresh after giving
reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned.
Since both the writ petitions are interconnected, they are disposed of by this Common Order.
It is seen that K. Nagarajan-R-3 in WP No. 28642/10 and K. Chandran-R3 in WP.28643/10 are the erstwhile President and Secretary
respectively of the Petitioner-Society. Certain financial irregularities said to have been committed by them during their tenure at the relevant time
surfaced later on, which resulted in an enquiry u/s 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act by the 2nd Respondent-Deputy Registrar of
Co-operative Societies, Kirshnagiri. The enquiry report, dated 22.07.1999, revealed that the said individuals, while functioning as President and
Secretary, caused a loss of Rs. 2,86,146.93/- to the Society by indulging in acts of misappropriation, breach of Trust and wilful negligence. Based
on the said report, surcharge proceedings u/s 87 of the Act came to be initiated by the 2nd Respondent and in the said proceedings, the individuals
did not appear before the authority-R2 despite repeated notices and ultimately, a detailed ex-parte order was passed on 07.12.2001 in surcharge
case No. 2/2001Sa. Pa.1. Seeking to set aside the said order, an Appeal was filed in C.M.A (Cs) No. 20 of 2002 before the 1st
Respondent/Tribunal, and by Order dated 31.03.2004, the matter was remitted back to the 2nd Respondent directing him to afford adequate
opportunity to the 3rd Respondent and thereafter, to pass orders in accordance with law. In compliance with the said order passed by the first
Respondent, R-2 issued summons to both the individuals, who on receipt of the same, appeared and defended their cases. After giving a
reasonable opportunity and considering the claim and counter-claim, by reasoned order dated 05.08.2004, the 2nd Respondent held against R-3
in the above cases and directed them to jointly make good the loss caused to the Petitioner-society to the tune of Rs. 2,5,2896.63. Aggrieved by
the said order, R-3 in these Writ Petitions filed C.M.A. (CS) Nos. 18 and 27 of 2005 and the first Respondent/Tribunal, by the impugned
common order dated 19.07.2010, set aside the surcharge proceedings and once again remitted the matter back to the 2nd Respondent for fresh
consideration and the said order is questioned herein.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that when the matter was originally remitted back by the 1st Respondent by order dated 31.03.2004
passed in CMA (Cs) No. 20 of 2002 to the 2nd Respondent with a specific direction to afford reasonable opportunity to the individuals before
deciding the case, duly complying with such direction, the 2nd Respondent issued summons to the parties, who on receipt of the same, appeared
before the authority and defended their case and only after properly assessing the entire case, by a detailed order, dated 05.08.2004, the said
authority fixed the responsibility of repayment jointly on the individuals. According to the learned Counsel, inasmuch as the reasoned order came to
be passed after complying with the direction of the Tribunal to afford reasonable opportunity to the individuals, the Tribunal is not justified in once
again remitting the matter back to the authority for fresh consideration and therefore, the said order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered
with.
Learned Government Advocate appearing for the 2nd Respondent, in line with the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
would submit that, after remand of the matter by the 1st Respondent, the individuals-R3 herein were given all reasonable opportunities by the 2nd
Respondent before passing the surcharge proceedings dated 05.08.2004 and therefore, the Tribunal should not have remitted the matter back
once again by setting aside the well-considered order passed by the authority-R2.
From a bare perusal of the order dated 05.08.2004 passed by the second Respondent, it could be seen that subsequent to service of summons,
the parties participated in the proceedings by making personal appearance and in fact, defended their case. In the said order, which runs to about
12 pages, R-2 elaborately discussed the matter in issue having regard to the defence raised by the individuals and ultimately, fixed the responsibility
jointly on the individuals and directed them to make payment of the misappropriated sum. The preamble portion of the order specifically mentions
about the presence of the parties during the course of proceedings and it refers to perusal of documents adduced and produced by them. That
being so, the impugned order of the Tribunal extraneously proceeds that no reasonable opportunity was given to the individuals to contest the
proceedings. Since there is no basis for such finding of the Tribunal, I am of the view that there is no point or purpose in once again remitting the
matter back to the 2nd Respondent and therefore, the impugned common order is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned common order is set aside. The first Respondent-Tribunal is hereby directed to
dispose of CMA (Cs) Appeal Nos. 18 and 27 of 2005 preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order,
in accordance with law. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.