ORDER :

The Revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.03.2012 made in CMA(CS) No.14 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was the erstwhile Secretary of the E.E.107 Perungulam Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd. In his capacity as the Secretary, he had disbursed loan to several persons as per the bye-law, but he failed to recollect the loans within the stipulated period of limitation and thereby had caused financial loss to the Societies Act, 1983. Enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Society Act was ordered in which it has been recommended to recover a sum of Rs. 14,45,338/- from the petitioner. As he has committed financial loss to the Society Surcharge Proceedings under Section 87 of the Act was initiated, and after conclusion of the Surcharge Proceedings the petitioner was directed to repay the amount initiating the recovery proceedings and against the said order the petitioner had preferred CMA (CS) No.14 of 2009 before the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi. The learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi by an order dated 19.03.2012 upheld the order passed by the respondent, against which the revision has been filed by the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Surcharge Proceedings initiated by the respondent was without any proper notice and it was conducted in one sided manner which is against the Principles of natural justice. The petitioner even before the lapse of limitation had given true and full accounts of the loaneess who had committed default and therefore under Section 90 of the Act, the Society ought to have taken action against the defaulters and collected the amount. The Society has failed to take any such steps and further the loanees of the respective loan had requested for time to repay the loan but the respondent did not consider the prayer of the loanees and passed the order against the petitioner without any basis. It is not the case where the loanees refused to pay the amount, but they had only sought for time to repay the loan. In view of the undertaking given by the loanees the respondent had not offered any opportunity to collect the loan even after the period of limitation. However the society failed to collect loan and for the inaction of the Society the petitioner is now faulted with. The Surcharge Officer and the appellate Court have not rendered a finding that there was wilful dereliction of duty on the party of the petitioner. The petitioner was never negligent and he had within the time given instructions to the Society to take proper action against the loanees. He would further reiterate the mere negligence on the part of the petitioner is not sufficient to initiate surcharge proceedings and there is nothing on merits to show that the petitioner was wilfully negligent or that the commissions or omissions are done in a deliberate and reprehensive manner with reckless callousness with a supine indifference without due care and caution ordinarily expected from a reasonable and prudent man under the existing circumstances. He would further submit that there is absolutely no finding that the petitioners act was deliberate and intentional and there was wilful dereliction of duty. He would further submit that the petitioner had been made as an scapegoat for the negligence of the society. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner also understands that except from two loanees all the other loans had been recovered entirely by the Society subsequently.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioner was the Secretary of the Society and he is the person who had disbursed loan to several persons as per bye law. He had failed to recollect the loan within the stipulated period of limitation and thereby caused financial loss to the Society by not taking