The court held that the order of the Special Tribunal is not a non-speaking order, the surcharge proceedings were initiated within the prescribed time limit, and the allegations against the petitioner do amount to an actionable wrong.

1. As both the Writ Petitions have been filed by the same petitioner arising out of two surcharge proceedings, they were heard together and disposed off by a Common Order.

2. In W. P.No.9017 of 2001, the petitioner has sought for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 13.06.2000, passed by the Special Tribunal for Cooperative cases, Erode, in E.P.No.68 of 1998, confirming the order of the surcharge passed by the first respondent dated 30.11.1996 in Na.Ka.No.16052/95-J.

3. In W.P.No.9018 of 2001, prayer has been made for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 13.06.2000, passed by the Special Tribunal for Co-operative cases (Principal District Judge) Erode, in E.P.No.11 of 1998, confirming the orders of the surcharge passed by the first respondent dated 30.11.1996 in Na.Ka.No.16052/95- J.

4. The petitioner was working as a Special Officer in the third respondent-Society. While so, a show cause notice was issued by the first respondent on 01.12.1995, calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the order of surcharge should not be issued against him for alleged loss of Rs.99,609.19 along with the previous Special Officer based on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

5. The petitioner was also issued with another show cause notice by the first respondent under Section 87 (1) of the said Act, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the loss of Rs.12,000/- along with Accountant of the Society should not be recovered.

6. According to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to defend the charge and a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to him and without following the Principles of Natural Justice, ex parte final order was passed by the first respondent, directing the petitioner to remit the amounts, claimed in the show cause notices. Against such orders, the petitioner filed Appeals before the Special Tribunal for Co-operative cases, (Principal District Judge). The Special Tribunal by the impugned orders in the Writ Petition, confirmed the order passed by the first respondent. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petitions.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised three contentions. Firstly, that the order passed by the Special Tribunal is a non-speaking order and without assigning any reason for rejecting the Appeals and therefore, the impugned orders call for interference.

8. The second contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that entire surcharge proceedings is barred by limitation, since the allegation pertains to the order passed in the year 1988 -89 and the notice was issued only in the year 1995 and therefore, it is beyond the period of limitation. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in (2009) 6 M.L.J. 1066 in the case of [ R.Ganapathy Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies ( Housing)]

9. The third and last contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the allegation against the petitioner does not amount to an actionable wrong in a deliberate and reprehensible manner for resorting to surcharge proceedings. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in (2009) 4 M.L.J. 992 in the case of (K.Ajay Kumar Gosh and other Vs. Tribunal for Co-operative Societies).

10. Heard, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on the above submission. The files from the office of the respondents were called for and perused.

11. Before this Court goes into the legal issues raised by the petitioner, it is first relevant to note the conduct of the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that while he was w