The main legal point established is that the Enquiry under Section 81, surcharge proceedings under Section 87, and compliance with the Bylaws are crucial in determining liability for loss in Co-operative Societies.

1. Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, all these Writ Petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Writ Petitions are filed seeking to quash the orders passed by the third respondent on 17.11.2012 in C.M.A.(Co-op.Society) Nos.47, 46, 48, 50, 43, 49, 44, 45 of 2005 along with the Surcharge Order Nos.07/2000/Sa Pa, 06/2000/Sa Pa, 08/2000/Sa Pa, 10/2000/Sa Pa, 03/2000/Sa Pa, 09/2000/Sa Pa, 04/2000/Sa Pa, 05/2000/Sa Pa, dated 20.07.2004, 30.07.2004, 30.07.2004, 30.07.2004, 20.07.2004, 30.07.2004, 20.07.2004, 30.07.2004, of the 1st respondent, insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

3. The facts of the case in a nut-shell are as follows: The Society is dealing in sale of cotton produce in open auction conducted at Poochampalli and Krishnagiri Units. The petitioner was working as Secretary in the second respondent Society from 28.12.1995 to 12.06.1997. The petitioner was entrusted with the work of selling cotton bags to the highest bidder. While so, an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (for short, “The Act”), came to be ordered against the petitioner and others in respect of sale of cotton. Based on the Enquiry Report, surcharge proceedings was initiated by the first respondent under Section 87 of the Act and the petitioner was held liable for the loss and he was directed to compensate the loss. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has preferred appeals in C.M.A.(Co-op.Society) Nos.47, 46, 48, 50, 43, 49, 44, 45 of 2005 and the third respondent/Tribunal has set aside the orders of the first respondent. Aggrieved against the same, the Society preferred Writ Petitions and on 11.10.2010, this Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remanded the matters to dispose of on merits. Accordingly, the Tribunal passed fresh orders upholding the Surcharge Orders of the first respondent. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition Nos.27310 to 27317 of 2011 before this Court and this Court on 13.03.2012 set aside the orders and remanded the matters back to the Tribunal to pass fresh order on merits. The Tribunal has passed fresh orders on the appeals on 17.11.2012 once again upholding the Surcharge Orders of the first respondent and holding that the petitioner is also jointly liable and responsible. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed these Writ Petitions.

4. The main ground of attack made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that an enquiry under Section 81 of the Act was conducted against the petitioner and others. Thereafter, based on the Enquiry Report, surcharge proceedings came to be initiated by the first respondent under Section 87 of the Act, treating as if the Enquiry Report under Section 81 of the Act is the gospel truth and it is the final one and no body could raise anything against the Enquiry Report under Section 81. Further, he would contend that after holding a farce enquiry, the surcharge orders have been passed by the first respondent. He would further contend that earlier, the petitioner challenged the surcharge orders and the matters twice came up before this Court and they were remanded back and finally after the last remittance on the ground that the petitioner should be given an opportunity and also report should be considered in detail, the present impugned orders came to be passed by the Tribunal/ third respondent upholding the surcharge orders passed by the first respondent. The learned counsel would submit that the impugned orders have been passed in a cryptic manner, without any discussion, and without taking into account the legal issues and only on the basis of Enquiry Report under Section 81 of the Act and by mere extraction of Bylaws and therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated and they are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel would further contend that neither charges were framed as contemplated under Section 87 of the A