The main legal point established in the judgment is that inspection and investigation under Section 82 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, do not involve an inquiry and do not require the opportunity for cross-examination. The initiation of a surcharge proceeding under Section 87 is based on reports submitted under various sections, and the actual adjudication occurs during the surcharge proceeding, where the person concerned is given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence.

1. The petitioner was formerly the Secretary of "The Nilgiris District Teachers Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society" which is a cooperative society governed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies by his proceedings dated 12.06.2013 ordered inspection into the affairs of the said society under Section 82 of the said Act. The Sub Registrar, who was appointed to inspect the affairs of the society in general, submitted a report on 20.09.2013.

2. Alleging that during such inspection no opportunity was given to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings, he made a representation to the Sub Registrar on 22.11.2013 to afford opportunity to him to participate in the proceedings under Section 82 of the Act. According to the petitioner, since it was not considered he had to file a writ petition in W.P.No.34265 of 2013 seeking appropriate direction to the Sub Registrar to afford sufficient opportunity. When the matter came up for hearing before this court on 06.01.2014, it was brought to the notice of this court that on completing the inspection the Sub Registrar had already submitted his report. But, on facts, it was found that the petitioner did not participate in the proceeding because he received the notice belatedly. It was also contended before this court that reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner to participate in the proceeding under Section 82 of the Act. Having considered the same, a learned single Judge of this court, by order dated 06.01.2014, while disposing of the writ petition, issued a direction not to give effect to the report submitted by the Sub Registrar and with a further direction as follows:-

"6. In view of the matter, the petitioner should be provided with a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, already examined. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, examined on behalf of the Society and also permit him to adduce both oral and documentary evidence. The report already drawn, on the basis of the ex parte enquiry need not be given effect to.

7. The Co-operative Sub-Registrar / Information Officer, Office of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ooty, 3rd respondent, shall send notices to the witnesses already examined, to be present on 20.01.2014, at 10.30 A.M., along with necessary records, so as to enable the petitioner to cross-examine them. The petitioner shall appear on the said date, i.e., 20.01.2014, and participate in the enquiry. He shall not seek for unnecessary adjournments, unless for genuine and bona fide cause. After completion of the cross-examination, the petitioner shall produce his oral and documentary evidence, as expeditiously as possible. The enquiry shall be completed , within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

3. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation seeking certain documents. The Sub Registrar issued a notice to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings on 21.02.2014. On that day, as many as 30 witnesses were in attendance. But the petitioner was not prepared to cross examine the witnesses, since, according to him, copies of certain documents were not furnished. The proceeding was adjourned to 15.03.2014, during which, there were 23 witnesses in attendance. When the witnesses were tendered for cross examination, the petitioner refused to cross examine them. Therefore, the Sub Registrar proceeded with the inspection and submitted a report dated 20.03.2014. Based on the said report, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, initiated proceeding under Section 87 of the Act. Accordingly, issued a surcharge memorandum, under Section 87 of the Act, by the Deputy Registrar by his proceedings in Tha.Thee.02/2014 dated 06.05.2014. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner is now before this court with this wit petition.

4. I have heard the