Innocent cannot be punished for fault of others.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have chosen to challenge the order of the first respondent dated 14.7.2004 insofar as it relates to the petitioners under the impugned order of the second respondent purported to have been issued under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The first, respondent has issued surcharge proceedings against the petitioner in W.P. No. 1064 of 2004 (S. Marimuthu) for the recovery of the amount due to loss to the second respondent to the extent of Rs. 1,17,213/-. Likewise, in respect of the petitioner in W.P. No. 1065 of 2004 (I. Jeyaraman) for having caused loss to the second respondent Society an amount of Rs. 3,82,551/- along with interest at the rate of 18% was directed to be paid jointly along with other persons.

3. The writ petitioners while working as Special Officer of the second respondent Co-operative Society have paid salary to one Mrs. K.R. Latha. Her appointment was subsequently terminated as illegal and audit objections were raised. It was fixing the responsibility on the petitioners that she was appointed illegally, the above said impugned proceedings came to be passed. The said impugned order is challenged by the petitioners on various grounds including that when a vacancy of a typist arose in the second respondent Society one Mrs. K.R. Latha who was then working as a typist in Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Workers Co-operative Stores- Limited, Madurai, has applied for the post, and after obtaining concurrence from the said Workers Co-operative Stores Limited and no objection, a resolution of the second respondent was passed and sent to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies who issued order through the first respondent to appoint the said Latha as a typist in the second respondent Society and therefore, there was no justification in fixing the responsibility on the petitioners. The petitioners have only appointed as per the orders of the Registrar under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and there was no negligence on their part.

4. Moreover, the petitioners have challenged the impugned proceedings also on the ground of laches or delay, namely, that when the appointment was made in respect of said Latha on 8.9.1996, the show cause notice came to be issued on 17.1.2004 after 7 years.

5. The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 1064 of 2004 has in fact appeared before the Appellate Authority under the,Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act appeal filed by the said K.R. Latha and given evidence as R. W. 1 and fairly defended the second respondent. In fact as against the order of the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, a legal opinion was given by the Government Pleader from the High Court, Madras stating that it is not a fit case for further filing of any writ petitions against the order of the Appellate Authority under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act.

6. That apart, the petitioners have not in their individual capacity made the appointment of the said Latha and they have only implemented the orders of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is the further case of the petitioners that when once the said petitioner in W.P. No. 1064 of 2004 has taken effective steps to defend the second respondent imputing motive on the Appellate Authority, namely, quasi-judicial authority is degrading the integrity of an officer appointed under law. It is the further case of the petitioners that even assuming that any irregularities in the appointment of the said Latha is there, it does not attract Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. In fact, when a proposal to take disciplinary action against the petitioner in W.P. No. 1065 of 2o04 was sought to be made, the Government by G. O. (T) No. 170 dated 30.6.2003 has decided not to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings after