The judgment establishes the requirement of furnishing enquiry reports under Section 81, the interpretation of the limitation under Section 87 as not mandatory, and the definition of willful negligence.

Common Order: Heard both sides.

.2. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners who are employees of the third respondent District Central Cooperative Bank, Nilgiris. Challenge is the order of the first respondent Cooperative Tribunal in various appeals filed by them. The appeals were disposed of by separate orders dated 24.03.2003. The appeals were filed by the writ petitioners challenging the surcharge proceedings initiated by the second respondent, Deputy Registrar under Section 90 of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act. Surcharge proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Registrar in respect of the irregularities in the Manjoor branch of the third respondent bank in several proceedings. The surcharge proceedings were preceded by an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act. By the enquiry report dated 17.06.1999 and 05.02.2002, it was found that the employees were responsible for the heavy loss caused to the society. Thereafter surcharge proceedings were initiated under Section 87 of the Act. The surcharge proceedings were taken on file as Tha.Thee.No.3 of 2002 and 10 of 2001 and 9 of 2001. At the end of the proceedings in respect of all the three surcharge proceedings, the total liability for recovery of the petitioners were fixed as Rs.52,78,192.05 paise. Aggrieved by the surcharge order, the petitioners preferred C.M.A.No.40 to 43 and 55 to 57 of 2002 and various other appeals under Section 152 of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act.

3. In the grounds of appeal raised before the Tribunal, the petitioners contended that they were not given a copy of the report furnished under Section 81 of the Act and this had caused prejudice to the petitioners. It was also stated that notice of enquiry under Section 81 was issued by the enquiry officer long after the completion of the report. It was also further stated that the enquiries were held under Section 87 beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Act. Therefore, the enquiry was invalid. It was also further stated that necessary witnesses were not examined to prove that the petitioners were responsible for causing loss to the bank in respect of the irregularities.

4. In so far as the non-furnishing of the report under Section 81 was concerned, the third respondent bank contended that some of the petitioners filed a writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.24275 and 24276 of 2001, for a direction to furnish the enquiry report and the statements of witnesses. The said writ petitions came to be allowed on 20.12.2001 and they have also acted as per the direction of this Court. A copy of the said order dated 20.12.2001 was also furnished. In that order, it was stated that though the petitioners can have the copies of the documents asked for, if any rules specifically impose a condition for payment of charges, the respondents are entitled to collect the said charges from the petitioners regarding their demand for records and copies. Hence, the Bank contended that under Rule 173 of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Rules, the society is entitled to collect fees for certified copies of any document excluding privileged documents which can not be given. Even the stand of the third respondent/society was that after the orders passed by this Court, they did not seek for copies by depositing the amount due for obtaining such certified copies.

5. With reference tothe bar of limitation under Section 87(1), it was also contended that the said provisions are only directory, but not mandatory. The Tribunal by its order dated 24.03.2003, rejected the contentions of the petitioners. The Tribunal held that the enquiry under Section 81 was conducted within the statutory period which was duly extended by the authorities. In so far as the limitation under Section 87, the Tribunal held the permission was obtained for passing orders and therefore it was held that there was no infirmity in the procedural aspect in passing the surcharge ord