IMPORTANT POINT
Failure to appear for enquiries despite notices being issued can preclude a party from raising objections regarding violation of natural justice principles and non-consideration of material documents at a belated stage.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the judgment and decree made in C.M.A (CS).No.2 of 2012 passed by the Principal District Judge, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Tribunal, Dharmapuri, confirming the award made in Na.Ka.No.11783/2003/Sa.Pa.2, dated 12.08.2011 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dharmapuri is illegal, unsound and liable to be set aside.)

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Co-operative Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the surcharge order passed against him.

2. The petitioner herein was employed as a Secretary in the 2nd respondent/Co-operative Society. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner acted against the by-laws of the Society and caused loss to the Society to the tune of Rs.13,90,671.09/-. The same was found out in 81 enquiry ordered in respect of affairs of the 2nd respondent-Society on 19.03.2001. Thereafter, the Surcharge Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and others under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. On receipt of the notice in 87 enquiry, the petitioner made a representation to the Enquiry Officer seeking documents relied on in 81 enquiry. The petitioner claims that the documents sought for by the petitioner for submitting his response were not at all furnished to him. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the Surcharge Order passed against the petitioner is vitiated by violation of natural justice principles.

3. The said contention raised by the petitioner was negatived by the Tribunal on the ground that on 08.07.2011, a summon was issued to the petitioner to appear and peruse the records on 14.07.2011 but he failed to turn up for perusal of the records. It is further recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner failed to appear for enquiry on 11.07.2011, 21.07.2011 and 28.07.2011 and therefore, his statement was not recorded in 87 enquiry.

4. A perusal of original records would suggest that petitioner was issued with notice for 87 enquiry on 28.06.2011. The notice dated 28.06.2011 would indicate the date of hearing as 08.07.2011. It appears that the petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent on 08.07.2011 and submitted a representation requesting furnishing of copies of the original documents relied on in 81 enquiry for coming to the conclusion regarding the loss caused to the Society. Thereafter, the 87 enquiry notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.07.2011 directing him to appear for enquiry on 20.07.2011. It is stated that the petitioner could not attend the enquiry on 20.07.2011. Again, another notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.07.2011 calling upon him to appear for enquiry on 28.07.2011.

5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that notice dated 21.07.2011 was received by him only on 30.07.2011 and therefore, he could not attend the enquiry. However, a perusal of the acknowledgement card for the notice dated 21.07.2011 would indicate that the petitioner received notice on 24.07.2011 though the petitioner at the time of putting his signature mentioned the date as 24.11.2011.

6. Having regard to the date of notice, it could only be 24.07.2011. Further, a perusal of postal seal available in the acknowledgement card also would indicate that the petitioner received the enquiry notice on 24.07.2011. Therefore, in spite of two notices dated 11.07.2011 and 21.07.2011, the petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer and therefore, he is not entitled to complain that he was not afforded with opportunity to peruse the documents or furnished with copies of original documents relied on in 81 enquiry.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Rule 104(6) (a) and 104(6) (b) of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules 1988, have not been complied with by the first respondent. 8. A perusal of the original records would suggest that the petitioner