Wilful negligence, as contemplated by Section 71 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, requires an intentional and purposeful omission to act, not mere negligence, however gross.

ORDER:- As both the above cases arise out of the same proceedings and involve identical issues, they are dealt with together.

2. An enquiry into the constitution, working and financing condition of the Tenkasi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, was ordered under Sec. 65 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 by the Deputy Registrar, Tirunelveli in his proceedings dated 22-11-1965. A preliminary report of the enquiry Officer was submitted on 19-7-1966 and it showed that there has been misappropriation of the Bank's funds. As a follow-up of the said report the Deputy Registrar issued surcharge notices dated 6-8-1966 under Section 71 of the Act to one M. Chockalingam Pillai the ex-President and N. T. Pannayar, the ex-Vice-President, and 8 others who were Ex-directors of the Bank. A surcharge notice was also issued to one R. Ulaganathan Ex-clerk of the bank who has alleged to have misappropriated the funds of the bank. At that stage the bank was superseded and a Special Officer was appointed under Section 72 of the Act by an order of the Joint Registrar dated 10-9-1966. In answer to the above surcharge notices issued to them, the Ex-Directors represented that the enquiry officer has sent only a preliminary report, and that surcharge proceedings could be initiated only after a complete and full report of the enquiry is received. In view of this objection, a revised surcharge notice was issued on 12-12-1966, after receipt of a complete and full report of enquiry on 29-10-1966, in modification of the earlier surcharge notice dated 6-8-1966. In the surcharge proceedings notices following the said revised notice dated 12-12-1966 it was found that an amount of Rupees 27,519-13 has been misappropriated during the period from 15-1-1948 to 23-8-1966 out of which a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was made good by the said Ulaganathan, Ex-Clerk. However, in view of Section 71 (1) which bars recovery of any amount by way of surcharge after a period of six years from the date of any act or omission, the amount misappropriated within six years prior to the notice of surcharge was alone taken into account. The result was the second surcharge notice related only to a sum of Rs. 12,718/- referable to the period covering six years preceding the surcharge notice. By his final order dated 19-8-1967 a surcharge order has been passed against Ex-clerk as well as the Ex-President, Ex-Vice-President and the Ex-Directors holding them jointly and severally liable for the said sum of Rupees 12,718/- found to have been misappropriated from the bank's funds.

3. Chockalingam Pillai, the Ex-President of the Bank and N. T. Pannayar, the Ex-Vice-President of the Bank, having died pending the surcharge proceedings, their legal representatives filed appeals before the Co-operative Tribunal, Tirunnelveli (District Judge, Tirunnelveli). The said appeals have been dismissed on 13-12-1971. The legal representatives of Chockalingam Pillai, Ex-President of the Bank has challenged the said decision of the Co-operative Tribunal in the Civil Revision Petition. The legal representatives of the Ex-Vice-President, N. T. Pannayar has filed the writ petition questioning the order of the Co-operative Tribunal.

4. The findings of the enquiry officer on the basis of which the surcharge order has been passed against the Ex-clerk and Ex-Directors is that the entire amount covering Items 25 to 40 has been misappropriated by the Ex-clerk, that he has also been convicted in a Criminal Court for misappropriation of the bank's funds, and that the President and Vice-President and Ex-Directors are liable to be surcharged for their carelessness and negligence. The Co-operative Tribunal refers to the evidence of Ulaganathan, Ex-Clerk who had deposed that he was the only clerk of the Bank from 6-6-1939 to 17-12-1965, that he was in sole charge of the accounts relating to the surcharged Items 25 to 40, that the amounts involved in Items 25 to 40 were in fact m