Surcharge proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring fair enquiry and opportunity for cross-examination.

ORDER :

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the 2^nd Respondent in C.M.A(C.S)No.81 of 2009 before the learned Co-operative Tribunal, Erode, (Principal District Court, Erode), who is the Revision Petitioner herein.

2. Brief facts which are relevant to decide this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:-

(a) The 1^st Respondent herein was the Secretary of the 2^nd Respondent Co-operative Society. While so, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society is stated to have received complaints that the 1^st Respondent was engaged in certain financial malpractices, affecting the interest of the Society. This was followed by an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act , following which surcharge proceedings were initiated against the 1^st Respondent.

(b) On 31.05.2004, a surcharge order was made, in which, the 1^st Respondent was found guilty of causing financial loss to the 2^nd Respondent due to his willful acts and commission and omission to a tune of Rs.28,48,551/- and this liability was fastened on him. This was challenged by the 1^st Respondent in C.M.A(C.S)No.5 of 2004 before the Tribunal (Principal District Judge, Erode) vide order dated 31.03.2006, the Tribunal allowed the said Appeal, and remanded the matter back to the lower Tribunal and directed it to give necessary opportunity to the 1^st Respondent and thereafter to pass appropriate orders. This led to the second surcharge order being passed on 21.11.2008, in which, the total liability earlier fixed was brought down to Rs.12,84,463/-. This was now challenged by the 1^st Respondent in C.M.A(C.S) No.81 of 2009.

(c) On 14.02.2011, C.M.A(C.S) No.81 of 2009 was allowed in which order of the Tribunal has held that no effective opportunity was still not seen to have been given to the 1^st Respondent, and no documentary evidence of any kind was produced or cited in the surcharge proceedings to fasten liability on the 1^st Respondent. Aggrieved by this order, the 2^nd Respondent/Co-operative Society preferred W.P.No.4183 of 2012. This Court vide order dated 19.09.2017, allowed the Writ Petition and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for re-hearing the matter.

(d) Accordingly, C.M.A(C.S)No.81 of 2009 came to be heard again and on 28.04.2018, it yet again allowed the Appeal almost on identical grounds, by which, the Appeal came to be dismissed in the earlier round. This order is now under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the 1^st Respondent himself has volunteered to make a statement in writing, wherein, he had admitted to the liability. He had not pointed out that the 1^st Respondent has impugned or challenged the said statement. When a fact is admitted, there is little need to prove it. The learned Counsel also tried to circulate a xerox copy of the said statement of the 1^st Respondent. The learned Counsel for the 1^st Respondent however, disputed the said statement.

4. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner is now required to file the typed set of papers containing a copy of the enquiry report under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act , followed by the first surcharge order dated 31.05.2004, the order passed in C.M.A.(C.S)No.5 of 2004, and the second surcharge order dated 21.11.2008 and the statement of the 1^st Respondent as recorded that such materials which formed foundation for second surcharge proceedings.

5. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submitted that the Revision Petitioner is the Society. The 1^st Respondent is the Secretary of the Society against whom surcharge proceedings were initiated. The 1^st Respondent had approached the learned Principal District Judge, Erode, by filing C.M.A(CS)No.81 of 2009. The learned Principal District Judge, Erode, as the Appellate Authority has set aside the finding of the surcharge proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the Society had filed W.P.No.33555 of 2018, which was