JUDGMENT :

A.P. Sahi, J.

(Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 5.8.2019 in W.P.No.13358 of 2019 on the file of this Court.)

The appellant was serving as the Managing Director of TAICO Bank i.e., an Apex Body, under which 266 Primary Level Co-operative Societies were being supervised and controlled. The Societies were particularly catering to the improvement of the economic condition of the minority community. Certain loans for purchase of Auto rickshaws were advanced through the Societies and since there were defaults in repayment, an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (for brevity, “the 1983 Act”) was initiated, in respect whereof, a report dated 20.03.2015 was submitted. On the strength of such an enquiry, surcharge proceedings were initiated under Section 87 of the 1983 Act culminating in the passing of the order imposing surcharge against the appellant on 11th March 2019. A challenge raised by the appellant against the same in the writ petition, giving rise to the present appeal, has ultimately failed under the impugned judgment dated 5th August 2019.

2. The learned Single Judge, rejecting the contentions on the issue of violation of principles of natural justice and also on the availability of an alternative remedy, has declined to entertain the writ petition that is being assailed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Shri R.Singgaravelan, assisted by Shri M.S.Palanisamy, on the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the very same Officer who had initiated the enquiry under Section 81 of the 1983 Act, i.e., Mrs.N.Shobana, respondent No.3 herein, also proceeded to take action as the Surcharge Officer on the strength of her own report that had been prepared by her in the proceedings under Section 81 of the 1983 Act and hence, the entire proceedings are vitiated, as a prosecutor-cum-witness cannot be a Judge in the same cause.

3. He then contends that the appellant was nowhere associated with the enquiry proceedings under Section 81 of the 1983 Act, and had an opportunity been given, the appellant would have explained that he was totally unconnected with the disbursement of the loans and was nowhere responsible either in the occurrence of the default or even thereafter as he had taken appropriate steps for ensuring recovery of the defaulted loans. Thus, this vitiated the proceedings, as no opportunity being given and the principles of natural justice were violated.

4. Substantiating his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contends that the principles of fairness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution has been given a go-by, inasmuch as the same Officer having conducted the enquiry proceedings as well as surcharge proceedings was outrightly prejudiced and had proceeded with a pre- determined mind without there being any substantive material or evidence available against the appellant, that too on the basis of an assumption of remote collective responsibility of the appellant that had resulted in defaults in payment.

5. It is urged that the charge was absolutely vague, inasmuch as the allegation was that the appellant had failed to take any legal action or any appropriate steps in ensuring an appropriate disbursement of loan and for taking appropriate steps against those who had defaulted. The contention is that this vagueness of the charge itself, with no material to support the involvement of the appellant, vitiates the issuance of the notice under the surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the 1983 Act.

6. With the aid of the judgments cited by him at the bar, learned Senior Counsel contends that a detailed reply was submitted to the show cause notice dated 10th December 2018 on 4th January 2019, but neither is there any discussion, nor finding, nor any conclusion supported by reasons on a consideration of the reply of the appellant and hence, the order dated 11th March 2019 fixing liability