GABRIEL Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR HOUSING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the decree and judgment of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur passed in C.M.A.No.18/95 dated 20.11.1997 confirming the order of the Deputy Registrar, Housing, Cuddalore, passed in Rc.No.752/92/Sa.Pa dated 2.7.1993.

(2.) The first respondent initiated action against the revision petitioner under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983,(hereinafter called as 'Act') wherein the charges were framed against him stating, while he was working as a Senior Inspector/Special Officer in Anna Cooperative House Building Society at Thanjavur, had misappropriated amount to a sum of Rs.35,840/- for laying road and for constructing culvert and no prior permission was obtained from the Registrar (Housing) and also falsified the records to that extent and thereby he had caused loss of Rs.35,840/- to the society. The petitioner was called upon to give his reply and he in his reply had stated that only after passing of the resolution in the General Body of the Society, the works were undertaken and the amounts were also disbursed on three instalments by inspecting the progress of the work and thereby, he denied the charges leveled against him. But however, the first respondent found that the explanation offered by the petitioner was not satisfactory, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had caused loss to the extent of Rs.35,840/- and passed an order for the recovery of the amount together with interest at 15% per annum. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Cooperative Tribunal i.e., The Principal District Judge at Thanjavur in C.M.A.No.18/1995 and the Tribunal accepted the finding of the first respondent and confirmed the said order and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been filed. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed against the petitioner is vitiated on two grounds i.e.,(1) the order passed by the first respondent on 2.7.93 is not legal on the ground that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner under Section 87 of the Act dated 7.2.1992 was not concluded within the time as stipulated in second proviso under Section 87 and (2) the respondents have not made out that the petitioner had caused loss to the society.