Liability of sureties is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, and recovery procedures must comply with established legal principles.

ORDER :-

All the applicants are employees under the 1^st respondent. The 3^rd respondent is a Credit Co-operative Society, in which all the applicants are members. One Satheesh, who was an employee of BSNL, was also a member of the said, credit Co-operative Society. Satheesh had availed three loans from the 3^rd respondent. In each of the loan transactions, two of the applicants were arrayed as sureties. Thus, each of the applicant herein is surety in one or more of these three loan transactions. Necessary documents A X 2025.05.23 were executed by them. Satheesh committed default in repayment of loan. Later, he committed suicide on 02.06.2021. Since the loan transaction remained unpaid, Annexures A-1 to A-3 notices were issued to the applicants by the 3^rd respondent, calling upon them to pay the defaulted amounts under the said loan transactions. They submitted Annexures A-6 to A-8 representations requesting the Society to recover the amounts due from the terminal benefits of the said Satheesh. Representations were also submitted to the 2^nd respondent, Accounts Officer of BSNL as Annexures A- 9 and A-10 requesting not to deduct the defaulted amount from their salary. It was stated that the amount due from them and Satheesh has not been quantified. While so, the 2^nd respondent effected deduction from the salary, as evidenced by Annexures A-11 to A-13 salary slips. Annexures A-14 to A-16 replies were issued by the 2^nd respondent informing that recovery was effected, pursuant to the recovery schedule issued by the 3^rd respondent, Society.

2. Aggrieved by the said action of the 2^nd respondent, the applicants have approached this Tribunal. At the time of admission, an interim stay of recovery from the salary was granted, which is continuing. The main reliefs sought in the OA are as follows:-

“(i) This Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to set aside Annexure A-14 to A-16 communication issued by the 2^nd respondent rejecting the request to not to recover the amount from the salary for the amount outstanding in the loan account of late Satheesh M.B.

(ii) This Hounourable Tribunal may be pleased to pass a direction directing the 2^nd respondent Accounts Officer to not to recover amount from the salary of the petitioners towards the amount demanded by the 3^rd respondent Society on account of Loan availed by the deceased Satheesh M.B.”

3. Notices were served on Respondents 4 and 5, who are the Legal Representatives of the deceased Satheesh. They have not chosen to appear and contest the proceedings.

4. Reply statement to the OA was not filed by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents. The 3^rd respondent has filed reply statement contending that no relief is liable to be granted, since the 3^rd respondent, Co-operative Society was not notified under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It was contended that the applicants had executed Annexures R- 3(a) to R-3(d) surety bonds and the applicants thereby authorised the principal creditor to recover the defaulted amounts from the said Satheesh and the sureties. It was contended that hence the OA was not sustainable. It was further contended that substantial amounts were due under the transaction. The applicants were sureties and thereby co-obligants who are legally bound to discharge the liability of principal debtor.

5. Heard both sides and examined the records.

6. The execution of documents, creation of liability in relation to loan transaction and the existence of a debt are not disputed by the applicant. Essentially, three contentions were advanced by the applicants. It was firstly contended that as per the long standing practice in the