JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned surcharge notice made in Na.Ka.No.2599/2018/Sa.Pa dated 30.10.2019 issued by the second respondent and quash the same.)

The show cause notice issued under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, asking the petitioner to submit his explanation/objection regarding initiation of surcharge proceedings is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant in Tiruchirappalli District Central Co-operative Bank through employment exchange. Thereafter, he was working as Circle Supervisor in Chinnatharapuram Circle. During the relevant point of time, when an enquiry was conducted, the second respondent/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies ordered for statutory inquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act to conduct an inquiry, with reference to the functioning of Andipatti Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who in turn conducted an inquiry with reference to the functioning of the Society and submitted his inquiry report. Based on the inquiry report submitted under Section 81 of the Act, the Competent Authority has initiated surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Act. A notice required under Section 87 of the Act was issued to the petitioner and the said notice is under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. The procedures contemplated, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, for brief understanding of the Statute, are that a statutory inquiry may be ordered under Section 81 of the Act and an inspection may be ordered under Section 82 of the Act. On submission of inquiry report, if any irregularities are noticed, then three fold actions are permissible. Firstly, the Departmental disciplinary proceedings may be initiated. Secondly, a criminal case can be registered under Criminal Law. Thirdly, the surcharge proceedings shall be initiated to recover the financial loss occurred to the Society. Three fold actions shall be initiated even simultaneously and there is no bar.

4. With reference to the above provisions, facts are to be considered.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner is an employee of Tiruchirappalli District Central Co-operative Bank and the statutory inquiry was conducted in Andipatti Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society. Therefore, he is not directly connected with the Society. The petitioner, in his capacity as a Supervisor, supervised the functioning of the Primary Society in accordance with the Act and Rules and as per the guidelines issued by the Department. Therefore, even in case of any allegation, a separate 81 inquiry is to be ordered against the petitioner and based on the statutory inquiry report submitted under Section 81 of the Act with reference to the functioning of Andipatti Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, no action can be taken. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relied on a circular issued by the Registrar in Circular No.36 of 2010 dated 20.12.2010. Relying on the said Circular, it is contended that “the Enquiry Officer should note that Surcharge action under Section 87 shall not lie against the Officer or Employee of the financing bank or federal Society though he has hand in glove with the officer or servant of the Society in which the misappropriation or forgery or criminal breach of trust took place and though he has been included as one of the delinquents in the criminal case. In such cases, the Enquiry Officer should recommend for a separate inquiry under Section 81 or Inspection or Investigation under Section 82 into this particular aspect in the concerned financing bank or the federal Society, as the case may be, in which the Officer or employee is or was employ