DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DINDIGUL Vs. TRIBUNAL FOR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES CUM PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the Writ Court made in W.P.(MD) No.6868 of 2009, dated 06.02.2017, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

(2.) The writ petition was filed challenging the order of the first respondent - Tribunal in allowing the appeal filed by the second respondent herein against the surcharge order. It is contended by the appellant that the second respondent, while holding the office as President of M.D.6, Dindigul Circle Co-operative Societies Employees Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., Dindigul, has committed certain irregularities and misappropriated the funds of the Society during the year 1999 and thereby caused loss of Rs.4,68,000/- to the Society along with one D.Ravi, who was the then Secretary of the said Society. An enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Act") was conducted and based on such enquiry, a surcharge order was passed under Section 87 of the Act on 24.02.2000, wherein and whereby the second respondent herein and the said D.Ravi were directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,68,000/- jointly and severally to the Society. When the said order was put to challenge before the Tribunal by the second respondent herein, the Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances in detail, found that the second respondent herein was not wilfully negligent in causing loss to the Society, on the reason that no evidence was let in to prove such wilful negligence on the part of the second respondent herein. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the surcharge order insofar as the same fixing the joint and several liability on the second respondent herein is concerned. Challenging the said order, the appellant herein filed a writ petition. The Writ Court concurred with the view expressed by the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition by specifically finding that there was no evidence to proceed further against the second respondent herein on the ground of wilful negligence and that the Tribunal has not committed any error in setting aside the surcharge proceedings initiated against the second respondent herein.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the surcharge order to contend that the second respondent was negligent in discharging his duties and therefore, he is also liable. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, had the second respondent compared the entries made in the ledgers with his personal passbook, he would have detected the malpractice and forged entries made by the said Secretary D.Ravi and consequently averted the loss to the Society.