The court established that disciplinary proceedings can continue after the age of superannuation if they were initiated before the retirement and recovery of financial loss caused to the Society is permissible under Section 87 of the Act.

Prabha Sridevan, J.

The Co-operative Movement was started in our country with a philosophy behind it and Co-operative Societies were formed with an object of infusing in the minds of people, the spirit of working in a group so that the members of the group gain benefit through collective contributions. It was truly Gandhian in its ideals. In its preamble, the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 very nobly states that it is meant to provide an orderly development of co-operative movement in accordance with principles like open membership, democratic management, thrift, self-help and mutual aid among persons with common socio-economic needs. It is intended to bring about improvement in agriculture and industry, better methods of production, better business and better living. But the objects have not been achieved. There has been a great deal of politicization of the co-operative movement; there has also been widespread misappropriation and diversion of the funds generated from the common man by the persons in charge. Our hearts cannot but be dismayed at this fact. The funds in a co-operative bank are meant to advance the democratic goal based on socio-economic principles. If they are allowed to be diverted, dissipated or frittered, it is betrayal of public trust.

2. In this case, the first respondent, in charge of the affairs of a Co-operative Bank, is charged with acts of grave misconduct, including causing huge financial loss to the Bank and has challenged the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that he has attained the age of superannuation. He must face the proceedings and establish that he has not caused such loss. He cannot get away merely because he has reached a certain age. He must prove that he is innocent of causing loss to the Co-operative Society.

3. The first respondent was the General Manager of the Nilgiris District Central Cooperative Bank (Bank in short). He had joined the services of then South Arcot Central Co-operative Bank in the year 1968-69 and when he attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2003, he was the General Manager of the Bank. On that day, an order in Rc. NO.16/2002/CCA.1 of the same date was served on him by the Special Officer of the Bank along with the endorsement No.Rc.5580/2003/E1. By this letter, the first respondent was informed that the Common Cadre Authority, under Section 76(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (Act in short) was placing him under suspension with effect from 30.6.2003. He immediately filed Writ Petition No.19349 of 2003 alleging that this order of suspension was served on him without any valid reasons and with mala fide intention to deny him his retiral benefits. The writ petition was admitted. On 8. 2004, the second appellant framed two charges against the first respondent. The first respondent submitted his explanation. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. The first respondent, therefore, filed the second writ petition challenging the action on the ground that after the attainment of the age of superannuation, framing of the charge memo was illegal and consequently, the charge memo is liable to be quashed. A counter affidavit was filed by the appellants. In this, it is stated that an enquiry was conducted by an appropriate authority into the allegations against the first respondent regarding serious irregularities in the issuance of cooking gas loan, promotion and transfer of Bank staff and purchase and installation of computers in the Bank, causing heavy loss to the Bank to the extent of Rupees 13.94 Lakhs. It was stated that while the materials were being gathered, he attained the age of superannuation and therefore, he was placed under suspension even before the date of his retirement and he was not allowed to retire and the terminal benefits were also not paid to him. The Chairman, Common Cadre Authority initiated disciplinary action against the first respondent. The first respondent submitted his explanation denying all