M. Jaichandren, J.

The respondent in the writ petition, in W.P.No.19712 of 2006, are the appellants in the present writ appeal.

2. This writ appeal has been filed against the order, dated 24. 2008, made in W.P.No.19712 of 2006. The learned single Judge, by his order, dated 24. 2008, had allowed the writ petition, with certain observations. While allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, the learned single Judge had noted that the point in issue was whether the charge memo issued against the respondent, after his retirement from service, is maintainable, in view of the fact that surcharge proceedings had already been initiated against him, under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), based on the same allegations relating to the same incident.

3. The learned Judge had held that the respondents in the writ petition and the appellants herein were not justified in continuing with the disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to the charge memo issued on 5. 2006, as it amounted to continuation of parallel proceedings. Therefore, the charge memo issued against the respondent had been quashed, granting liberty to the appellants to proceed against him with the surcharge proceedings.

4. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner in the writ petition and the respondent herein, are as follows:

The respondent was working as a Cooperative Sub-Registrar and he had retired from service, on 31. 2005, on attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of his retirement, the respondent was working as the Special Officer, the Dharapuram Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society. Before he had joined the service in the said society, he was working as the Special Officer of the Dharapuram Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., from 312. 2001 to 1. 2004. After the retirement of the respondent from service, on 31. 2005, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Erode, had issued surcharge proceedings against him, in Na.Ka.No.8109/2005 Sa.Pa., dated 10. 2005, requiring the respondent to answer the charges framed under Section 87 of the Act, based on the Inspection Report, dated 27. 2005, submitted under Section 82 of the Act, asking the respondent to show cause as to why a surcharge order should not be passed against him for the recovery of Rs.12,37,028/-, as he was jointly and severally liable for the alleged loss caused to the Dharapuram Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd, along with certain others employed therein.

5. Aggrieved by the surcharge proceedings initiated against him, the respondent had challenged the same before this Court by filing a writ petition, in W.P.No.37361 of 2005. He had also obtained an interim order of stay of all further proceedings, in W.P.M.P.No.40017 of 2005, on 111. 2005. The said writ petition is still pending on the file of this Court. While so, the respondent has been permitted to retire from service, unconditionally, on 31. 2005, by the proceedings of the third appellant, dated 31. 2005. However, the second appellant had initiated disciplinary proceedings by framing a charge against the respondent for imposing a major punishment, vide his proceedings Na.Ka.No.123069/2005/NaVa.3, dated 5. 2006, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, on the basis of the sanction accorded by the first appellant Government, vide G.O.(D) No.151, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (C.L.1) Department, dated 14. 2006, under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

6. The charge alleged against the respondent is that he had failed in his duty and responsibility by issuing various loans to the members of the Dharapuram Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., while working as a Special Officer, from 12. 2001 to 9. 2004 and thereby acting against the general interest and the financial position of the Bank. The said charge had been framed, based on the same facts and the earlier charges framed aga