ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 12.12.2019 passed in CMA(CS) No.19 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The petitioner would aver among other things that the petitioner joined the service of the first respondent as Salesman on 10.05.1978 and retired on 30.04.2015, on attaining superannuation. During the services of the petitioner, the petitioner was given an additional duty to write cheques, as and when directed by the first respondent. While so, after his retirement, the second respondent initiated a proceedings under Section 81 of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act as one Ponmudi, the erstwhile Special Officer/Deputy Registrar had paid a sum of Rs.11,80,000/- to one Sri Enterprises for purchasing generator with automatic transfer switch without obtaining permission from the Central Cooperative Bank. Subsequently, by an order dated 19.10.2015, the second respondent has directed to initiate surcharge proceedings for recovery for a sum of Rs.9,80,000/-. In that proceedings, the second respondent has also issued direction to initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioner along with the said Ponmudi, as the petitioner wrote the cheques for making the above payments. Further, the second respondent has conducted the proceedings under Section 87 of the Act and passed an order dated 20.07.2016 holding that the petitioner was jointly liable to pay the amount. Challenging the order, the petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal(CS) No.19 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli and the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2019. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief stated earlier.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proceedings of the second respondent is ex-facie, erroneous and unsustainable in the eye of law. The second respondent failed to note that one Arjunan, who is the General Manager(in-charge) has created a file for making the above purchase and wrote the proposal for the same and the Special Officer/Deputy Registrar has issued orders by making an endorsement and on the basis of the same, the petitioner wrote the cheques as and when instructed by the Managing Director or Special Officer of the first respondent to which the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the violations committed by the Special Officer in making payments. The petitioner was only entrusted the work of writing cheque and he only filled up the cheque as directed by Special Officer. Even the Special Officer, namely, the said Ponmudi has admitted the issuance of cheque and subsequently Sri Sai Enterprises has repaid a portion of the amount admitting their liability. Hence, he prays for allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner along with two others have colluded with the private firm for purchasing Generator with automatic transfer switch without obtaining permission from the Central Co-operative Bank. The petitioner should have been more cautious at the time of writing cheque to the private firm. Therefore, the Court below after carefully considering the points as well as materials available before it, came to the conclusion that the role of the petitioner also in swindling the society amount cannot be ruled out and accordingly, fixed the liability on the petitioner, which cannot be found fault with. He further contends that though the payment was made, the said generator was not delivered there and therefore, surcharge proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It is the specific contention of the learned additional government pleader that wantonly and wilfully the petitioner and others colluded together to purchase the above generator with the intention of misappropriating the amount. To sum up, he prays for dismissal of the Ci