The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of affording reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned in surcharge proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, and the court's authority to set aside unfounded findings and remittal orders.

1. The petitioner herein-Special Officer of Irudhukottai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited at Krishnagiri, by filing these two writ petitions, challenge the common judgment and decree, dated 19.07.2010, passed by the Presiding Officer, District Co-operative Cases Appellate Tribunal (Principal District Court), Krishnagiri, in C.M.A (Cs) Nos.18 and 27 of 2005, whereby and where-under, the 2nd respondent herein who passed the surcharge proceedings, dated 05.08.2004, in Surcharge Case No.2 of 2001 as against one K.Nagarajan and K.Chandran/R-3 in these Writ Petitions, was directed, while remitting the case back, to consider the matter afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned.

2. Since both the writ petitions are interconnected, they are disposed of by this Common Order.

3. It is seen that K.Nagarajan-R-3 in WP No.28642/10 and K.Chandran-R3 in WP.28643/10 are the erstwhile President and Secretary respectively of the petitioner-Society. Certain financial irregularities said to have been committed by them during their tenure at the relevant time surfaced later on, which resulted in an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kirshnagiri. The enquiry report, dated 22.07.1999, revealed that the said individuals, while functioning as President and Secretary, caused a loss of Rs.2,86,146.93/- to the Society by indulging in acts of misappropriation, breach of Trust and wilful negligence. Based on the said report, surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Act came to be initiated by the 2nd respondent and in the said proceedings, the individuals did not appear before the authority-R2 despite repeated notices and ultimately, a detailed ex-parte order was passed on 07.12.2001 in surcharge case No.2/2001Sa.Pa.1. Seeking to set aside the said order, an Appeal was filed in C.M.A (Cs) No.20 of 2002 before the 1st respondent/Tribunal, and by Order dated 31.03.2004, the matter was remitted back to the 2nd respondent directing him to afford adequate opportunity to the 3rd respondent and thereafter, to pass orders in accordance with law. In compliance with the said order passed by the first respondent, R-2 issued summons to both the individuals, who on receipt of the same, appeared and defended their cases. After giving a reasonable opportunity and considering the claim and counter-claim, by reasoned order dated 05.08.2004, the 2nd respondent held against R-3 in the above cases and directed them to jointly make good the loss caused to the petitioner-society to the tune of Rs.2,5,2896.63. Aggrieved by the said order, R-3 in these Writ Petitions filed C.M.A(Cs) Nos.18 and 27 of 2005 and the first respondent/Tribunal, by the impugned common order dated 19.07.2010, set aside the surcharge proceedings and once again remitted the matter back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration and the said order is questioned herein.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the matter was originally remitted back by the 1st respondent by order dated 31.03.2004 passed in CMA (Cs) No.20 of 2002 to the 2nd respondent with a specific direction to afford reasonable opportunity to the individuals before deciding the case, duly complying with such direction, the 2nd respondent issued summons to the parties, who on receipt of the same, appeared before the authority and defended their case and only after properly assessing the entire case, by a detailed order, dated 05.08.2004, the said authority fixed the responsibility of repayment jointly on the individuals. According to the learned counsel, inasmuch as the reasoned order came to be passed after complying with the direction of the Tribunal to afford reasonable opportunity to the individuals, the Tribunal is not justified in once again remitting the matter back to the authority for fresh consideration and therefore, the said order passed