The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2009 made in Co-op.C.M.A.No.61 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, confirming the order dated 16.08.2007 made in Na.Ka.No.2/2006/Sa Pa 1 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore.

2. The petitioner is the appellant and respondents are the respondents in C.M.A.No.61 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore. The petitioner is the respondent in surcharge proceedings dated 16.08.2007 made in Na.Ka.No.2/2006/Sa Pa 1 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore. The petitioner was the co-operative Sub-Registrar and he was posted as the Special Officer of the Coimbatore Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society/second respondent herein. According to the second respondent, certain irregularities have taken place in the society and an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, was ordered. Based on the enquiry report, surcharge proceedings was initiated against the petitioner. The following three charges were framed against the petitioner:

(i) The petitioner misused the official vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-U-8856 for his personal use from 02.01.2004 to 25.07.2005 and caused a loss of Rs.12,895/- to the second respondent society.

(ii) The petitioner has purchased excess tamarind to the tune of Rs.9,97,960/- and the same was spoiled and thus, caused loss to the second respondent/society to the tune of Rs.9,87,200/-.

(iii) The petitioner has purchased Barani masala powder from 06.05.2005 to 08.07.2005 to the tune of Rs.7,41,415/- in excess of required quantity. The said masala powder to the value of Rs.1,50,775.15 was not sold within the time limit and the same is spoiled.

(iv) The petitioner by purchasing excess quantity of tamarind and Barani masala powder caused loss to the extent as mentioned above.

3. The first respondent conducted enquiry in the surcharge proceedings and the petitioner has participated and submitted his explanation. Before the first respondent, the officer, who conducted enquiry against the petitioner and godown keeper of the Head office were examined. The petitioner cross-examined them. The first respondent considering the evidence and materials on record by proceedings dated 16.08.2007, held that the petitioner is liable to pay the following sums:

(i) Rs.12,895/- for misusing the vehicle;

(ii) Rs.6,51,571.60 for excess purchase of tamarind;

(iii) Rs.84,467.15 for excess purchase of Barani masala powder;

Totally, petitioner was held liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,48,933.75/-.

4. Challenging the said proceedings dated 16.08.2007, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.61 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore.

5. The learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, after considering the materials on record by judgment and decree dated 30.01.2009, dismissed the appeal.

6. Against the said judgment and decree dated 30.01.2009 made in C.M.A.No.61 of 2007, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:

(i) The charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved before the first respondent and the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, failed to consider that the first respondent did not properly appreciate the evidence on record and erroneously held that the petitioner caused loss to the second respondent society. The reasons given by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, for dismissing the appeal are not valid.

(ii) From the evidence of enquiry officer, it is clear that both the drivers of the vehicle belonging to the second respondent society have categorically stated that the petitioner has not used the vehicle for his personal use. The first respondent has held that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.12,895/- as he failed to supervise the drivers, who have w