P.KRISHNAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was serving as the Managing Director of TAICO Bank i.e., an Apex Body, under which 266 Primary Level Co-operative Societies were being supervised and controlled. The Societies were particularly catering to the improvement of the economic condition of the minority community. Certain loans for purchase of Auto rickshaws were advanced through the Societies and since there were defaults in repayment, an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act , 1983 (for brevity, "the 1983 Act") was initiated, in respect whereof, a report dated 20.03.2015 was submitted. On the strength of such an enquiry, surcharge proceedings were initiated under Section 87 of the 1983 Act culminating in the passing of the order imposing surcharge against the appellant on 11 th March 2019. A challenge raised by the appellant against the same in the writ petition, giving rise to the present appeal, has ultimately failed under the impugned judgment dated 5th August 2019.

(2.) The learned Single Judge, rejecting the contentions on the issue of violation of principles of natural justice and also on the availability of an alternative remedy, has declined to entertain the writ petition that is being assailed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Shri R.Singgaravelan, assisted by Shri M.S.Palanisamy, on the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the very same Officer who had initiated the enquiry under Section 81 of the 1983 Act, i.e., Mrs.N.Shobana, respondent No.3 herein, also proceeded to take action as the Surcharge Officer on the strength of her own report that had been prepared by her in the proceedings under Section 81 of the 1983 Act and hence, the entire proceedings are vitiated, as a prosecutor-cum-witness cannot be a Judge in the same cause.

(3.) He then contends that the appellant was nowhere associated with the enquiry proceedings under Section 81 of the 1983 Act, and had an opportunity been given, the appellant would have explained that he was totally unconnected with the disbursement of the loans and was nowhere responsible either in the occurrence of the default or even thereafter as he had taken appropriate steps for ensuring recovery of the defaulted loans. Thus, this vitiated the proceedings, as no opportunity being given and the principles of natural justice were violated.