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 lib