ORDER :

Prayer in CRP No.19 of 2010 : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.08.2009 passed in C.M.A.No.1 of 2008 by the Principal District Judge, District Co-operative Tribunal, Dharmapuri confirming the order dated 31.03.2001 passed in Surcharge No.02 MTrM-j/m-ktp-98 by the third respondent.

Prayer in CRP No.20 of 2010 : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.08.2009 passed in C.M.A.No.38 of 2008 by the Principal District Judge, District Co-operative Tribunal, Dharmapuri confirming the order dated 31.03.2001 passed in Surcharge No.05 MTrM-j/m-ktp-98 by the third respondent.

Prayer in CRP No.21 of 2010 : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.08.2009 passed in C.M.A.No.39 of 2008 by the Principal District Judge, District Co-operative Tribunal, Dharmapuri confirming the order dated 31.03.2001 passed in Surcharge No.04 MTrM-j/m-ktp-98 by the third respondent.

Prayer in CRP No.22 of 2010 : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.08.2009 passed in C.M.A.No.40 of 2008 by the Principal District Judge, District Co-operative Tribunal, Dharmapuri confirming the order dated 31.03.2001 passed in Surcharge No.01 MTrM-j/m-ktp-98 by the third respondent.

These revision petitions have been filed against the order of dismissal passed in CMA No.1/2008, CMA No.38/2008, CMA No.39/2008 and CMA No.40/2008 by the District Judge, District Co-operative Tribunal, Dharmapuri confirming the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in surcharge Nos.02,05,04,01/MTrM-j/m-ktp-98 dated 31.03.2001.

2. The revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant in the surcharge proceedings and he is the Principal of the Co-operative Sugar Mill Polytechnic, Dharmapuri District. The Commissioner of Sugar, Chennai, who is the plaintiff in the said proceedings initiated surcharge proceedings No.02, 05, 04, 01 MTrM-j/m-ktp-98 against the present revision petitioner and two others namely P.K. Ranganathan and S. Aramvalarthan.

3. The charges framed against the defendants are that one Ranganathan, who was the accountant in the said Polytechnic prepared forged vouchers and misappropriated the amounts and similarly, the secretaries and cashiers were also involved in the act of misappropriation by forging signatures; disbursing meager amounts, but made entry in the cash records as if the actual amount was disbursed; returning the fees to the dropped out students, thereby misappropriated the funds of the polytechnic, which resulted in loss to the society. The revision petitioner is also implicated in the said surcharge proceedings on the ground that since he was the Principal of the polytechnic at the relevant point of time and put his initial in the vouchers prepared by the concerned staffs, he also responsible for the said misappropriation. Accordingly, charges were framed against him and others.

4. Originally, an enquiry officer, who conducted enquiry with regard to the misappropriation committed by the defendants issued surcharge order, finding them guilty of the misappropriation. Against which, the first and 2nd defendants preferred appeals before the District Co-operative Tribunal, Dharmapuri. The Tribunal set aside the said surcharge order, vide its order dated 27.04.2000 and ordered for re-enquiry. Accordingly, as per the order of the District Co-operative Tribunal, Dharmaputi, the Surcharge Officer made an re-enquiry and then issued order under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, stating that since the revision petitioner had responsibility to maintain the affairs of the polytechnic, he also responsible for such misappropriation and found him guilty along with two other staffs of the polytechnic, who were actually found indulged in preparing the receipts namely the accountant and secretary.

5. The allegation aga