O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the first respondent in his proceedings in Revision Petition, dated 05.03.2014 by confirming the order of the second respondent in his proceedings, dated 21.04.2004 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the arrears of amount due to him within a period stipulated by this Court.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Supervisor in the second respondent bank at Bodinayakanur Branch in the year 1971. Then, he was promoted as Senior Assistant and then as Assistant Manager. The petitioner served in the second respondent bank at Chinnamanur Branch, Theni District and retired from service on 31.01.2006. When the petitioner was working as a Assistant Manager in the second respondent bank at Bodinayakanur Branch, the petitioner sanctioned 631 loans for the members to set up Bio Gas service. Out of 631 beneficiaries, 98 persons have defaulted in repayment of loan, for which the petitioner has taken necessary steps to recover the loan by filing the recovery applications before the Sales Officer, Theni, in ARC No.1293/08.08.2003 to

1390/08.08.2003.

3. The second respondent has issued a charge memo, dated 14.07.2003 and the charge is that the petitioner has not taken necessary steps to recover the said loans. The petitioner submitted an explanation and without accepting the explanation, the second respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for a period of two years, vide order, dated

21.04.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner was permitted to retire on 31.01.2006. 4. In the mean while, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.No.17, dated 27.02.2009, wherein, it has waived the defaulted loans sanctioned to the beneficiaries to set up Bio Gas. Relying on G.O.No.17, dated 27.02.2009, the petitioner has stated that there is no monetary loss for the second respondent. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that based on this G.O.No. 17, dated 27.02.2009, the petitioner has given a representation, dated 12.04.2004, to consider and revoke the order of stoppage of increment and the same was rejected by the second respondent on 23.4.2012, for the reason that the second respondent has no authority to review his own order. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition under Section 153 of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act in Revision Petition No.14 of 2012.

5. The second respondent has filed a counter in the said Revision Petition and after hearing the parties, the first respondent has dismissed the Revision Petition, dated 05.03.2014. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed.

6. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was examined in the domestic enquiry and adequate opportunity was granted to cross examine the witness. After proper analysis the Enquiry Officer has submitted the enquiry report. Since, a full fleged enquiry was conducted, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no financial loss, since there is waiver under G.O.No.17, dated 27.02.2009, cannot be accepted. The respondent submitted that, if the loan amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner through recovery proceedings, then the petitioner may contend that the bank cannot recover the loss, because the loan amount was waived by the Government. But in the present case the punishment is imposed for the charge of negligence and dereliction of duty and not for recovery of loss. Hence, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the Government order No.17, dated 27.02.2009, which waive the Gas loan. The Revisional authority has heard the parties and has come to the independent conclusion, and the same cannot be found fault. The power of the Revisional authority is to see, whether the individual is refused fair treatment and whether the competent Officer