ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') through proceedings dated 11.07.2017.

2. One Sheela Devi and Jeyachitra, against whom, criminal cases were pending for the illegalities committed by them in a ration shop, were reinstated into service by the proceedings of the President of Pullampadi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society. Hence, enquiry/investigation was ordered by the Registrar and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Pursuant to the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, surcharge proceedings were initiated under Section 87 of the Act against the President and two others for recovery of a sum of Rs.59,420/-, which was determined as the loss suffered by the Society. The petitioner, who was the Secretary incharge also was made to face the proceedings.

3. The second respondent, by order dated 11.07.2017, directed a sum of Rs.59,420/- to be recovered along with interest at 13.75% from the petitioner and two others and they were jointly and severally made liable. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner primarily raised two grounds. The first ground that was raised by the petitioner is that the order passed in the surcharge proceedings is violative of principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was not furnished with the report that was given by the Enquiry Officer under Section 82 of the Act. The next ground that was pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no deliberate or wilful negligence on the part of the petitioner and the same is evident from the findings of the second respondent and therefore, the proceedings of the second respondent is liable to be interfered with by this Court.

5. The learned counsel in order to substantiate his submission, relied upon the judgment of this Court in K.Ajay Kumar Gosh and others v. Tribunal for Cooperative Cases reported in (2009) 4 MLJ 992 and S.Selvaraj and others v. the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies and another reported in (2018) 3 LW 22.

6. Per contra, the learned Government appearing on behalf of the respondents questioned the very maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that there is an effective and alternative remedy available to the petitioner under section 152 of the Act and therefore, the petitioner has to necessarily work out his remedy in the appeal before the concerned authority. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that there is a categorical finding given by the second respondent to the effect that there was a wilful negligence on the part of the petitioner in not having properly advised the President due to which two persons, against whom criminal cases were pending, were taken back into service. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity by the second respondent and for the first time, the petitioner has come up with a plea that he was not furnished with the report given by the Enquiry Officer under Section 82 of the Act. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate urged this Court to dismiss this writ petition.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

8. A careful reading of the impugned order passed by the second respondent shows that the main allegation has been made only against the President of the Society, who is said to have completely disregarded the circulars and instructions given by the Registrar and had reinstated the employees against whom there are pending criminal cases. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it must be noted that the petitioner was only an incharge Secretary of the concerned Society and he was not a full time Secretary in the Society. Keeping this in mind, it w