O R D E R

The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the second respondent Society on

07.05.1990 and thereafter, promoted as Senior Clerk on 01.04.1991.

2. The first respondent herein had ordered for an inspection of the second respondent Society under Section 82 of 'The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983' and based on the report, it is alleged that the petitioner has been receiving excess salaries for the promotion given to him, which was not authorised. In this connection, it is stated that the petitioner had caused a loss to the Society to the tune of Rs.6,02,035/-, by way of excess salaries.

3. When this inspection report was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.26327 of 2015, I had quashed the report through an order dated 23.06.2022 by holding that the action initiated by the respondents was barred by limitation. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

3. Section 87 of the Act empowers the Registrar to pass orders for recovery of the loss caused to the Society. However, the proviso to Section 87 places a limitation for such recovery at seven years from the date of such acts / omissions. While that being so,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the present impugned Inspection Report, since

relates to certain acts / omissions, which are more than 23 years and 20 years, cannot be enforced as against the petitioners herein. The limitation provided under Section 87 of the Act was dealt with by this Court in the case of K.Murugan Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Erode Circle reported in 2011 (3)CTC 689, in the following manner.

“20. In S.V.K.Sahasramam Vs. Deputy Registrar of Coop.Societies[(2008) 8 MLJ 231], a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court considered the question whether the time limit,which is provided under Section 81(4) of the Act is mandatory or not and whether the word "shall" used in 81(4) of the Act has to be construed as mandatory or not. Though impugned proceedings in the present case is under Section 87, yet, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench could be applied to the present case, since, the proviso to Section 87 was also examined, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench held as follows:-

“10.Before the learned Judge of the writ Court, the appellant relied on two learned single Bench judgments of this Court rendered in the case of T.V.Ekambaram v. Cooperative Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Madurai 2000 (2) CTC 659 and in the case of Gabriel v. Deputy Registrar (Housing), Cuddalore (2003) 2 MLJ 624: 2003(3)CTC 23.In both these two judgments, the provisions of Section 87 of the said Act which relate to surcharge proceedings were examined and the learned Judges in both the aforesaid judgments construed the following proviso to Section

87:

"Provided further that the action commenced under this sub-section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of such commencement or such further period or periods as the next higher authority may permit but such extended period or periods shall not exceed six months in the aggregate."

Considering the said time limit of six months, the learned Judges came to the conclusion that the said period of six months is mandatory.

11. We are constrained to hold that even though no appeal has been taken to us from the said judgments, yet having regard to the well settled legal position which has been referred to hereinabove, the finding of the learned Judges in these two judgments that the period of six monthsin the second proviso to Section 87 of the said Act ismandatory is not a correct finding in law. We find that even though before the learned Judge of the writ Court those two judgments of the learned Judge of the writ Court those two judgments of the learned single Bench were cited, the learned Judge of the writ Court was not swayed by those two decisions and came to a correct finding, relying upon the well settled proposition laid down by the Supreme Court as pointed above hereinabove."

21. As noticed above, the Hon'