The first petitioner is the President, the second petitioner is the Vice-President and the petitioners 3 to 11 are the Executive Members of the second respondent Society. They have filed two writ petitions.

2. In W.P.No.43238 of 2016, they have challenged the impugned order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the first respondent/the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society, Erode Region, Erode, in and by which, the first respondent has superseded the Board of the second respondent Society under Section 88(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (in short “the Act”).

3. In W.P.No.43239 of 2016, they have challenged the impugned order dated 22.11.2016 passed by the first respondent/the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society, Erode, in and by which, the petitioners were disqualified from holding the post of Directors in any of the Cooperative Societies under Section 36(1) of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first respondent in his proceedings dated 18.04.2013 had ordered an enquiry under Section 81 of the Act against one Mr.Murugesan, who was working as Secretary of the second respondent Society. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 15.06.2013, whereby it is stated that the employees of the Society have caused loss to the tune of Rs.11,02,745.50/- to the Society. Based on such report, a complaint was lodged by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative societies, Gobichettipalayam before CCIW Police, Erode in Cr.No.1/2013 against the Secretary/Murugesan and two others. The said Murugesan was placed under suspension with effect from 26.07.2013 by the Board of Management. Thereafter, the Board of Management initiated departmental proceedings against the said Murugesan and thereby it has awarded a punishment of reduction with cumulative effect for a period of one year. Subsequently, he was also reinstated into the services of the Society on 25.07.2014.

5. Continuing his argument, it is further stated that another enquiry was initiated against the said Murugesan and on the basis of the report submitted, a fresh criminal case was registered on 28.08.2014 and thereafter, he was arrested and remanded to Judicial custody. Subsequently, he was also placed under suspension on 28.08.2014. It is further stated that both the suspension order as well as the stoppage of increment were revoked on 13.04.2015. The said Murugesan had also filed a petition seeking subsistence allowance for the suspended period before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, who, in turn, vide his order dated 27.03.2015, directed the respondents to pay subsistence allowance to the tune of Rs.4,51,669/- to the said Murugesan. In compliance of such order, a sum of Rs.2,78,974/- was paid to him through a cheque, after deducting a sum of Rs.90,813/- and Rs.81,882/- which were already paid to him. However, the first respondent, by presuming that the petitioners have caused loss to the Society by paying such amount to Murugesan, issued a show cause notice dated 09.12.2015 to the petitioners asking them to explain as to why the Board of Management should not be superseded. Thereafter, the petitioners have submitted their explanation dated 10.11.2016 denying the allegation of misappropriation of the funds belonging to the Society and they further stated that the alleged amount was paid to him only in accordance with law as per the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. However, without taking note of such explanations offered by the petitioners, the first respondents through the impugned orders dated 21.11.2016 and 22.11.2016 has passed an order of super-session and also the order of disqualification preventing the petitioners from functioning in the second respondent Society.

6. By narrating the above facts, it is further submitted that the entire proceedings have emanated from a report said to have been submitted by the Enquiry Officer under Section 81 of the Act, however, the said report has not been communic