IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.03.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR Review Application No.254 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.20799 of 2024 M.Sampath ... Applicant vs.

1.The Deputy Registrar, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies, Dharmapuri Region, Dharmapuri District.

2.The Special Officer, K.K.156, SungaraHally Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sungarahally, Sillarahalli Post, Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the order dated 07.03.2024 made in C.R.P.(PD).No.2037 of 2021 passed by this Court by deciding the case of merits.

For Appellant : Mr.G.Ethirajulu For Respondents : Mr.C.Sathish Government Advocate

O R D E R

This Review Application has been filed seeking to review the order passed by this Court dated 07.03.2024 made in C.R.P.(PD).No.2037 of

2021.

2. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Cooperative Societies Tribunal, Dharmapuri dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the surcharge order passed against him.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant/petitioner would submit that in the surcharge proceedings, a notice dated 21.07.2011 was issued to the applicant/petitioner for the hearing to be held on 28.07.2011 and the same was received by applicant only on 30.07.2011 and this Court based on the postal acknowledgement card meant for service of final surcharge order dated 12.08.2011 wrongly came to the conclusion that notice was served on the petitioner on 24.07.2011 well prior to the date of enquiry. The learned counsel further submitted that the Enquiry Officer, who conducted Section 81 enquiry filed a report without perusing the original accounts book of the bank relating to the period, which was stolen as per the complaint of Deputy Registrar of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies, Dharmapuri, dated 20.02.2003 and the said point has not been taken into consideration by this Court.

4. This Court in the order passed in civil revision petition in Paragraph Nos.4, 5 and 6 dealt with the service of notices on the petitioner for enquiry. This Court on perusal of original records clearly noted that notice for enquiry to be held on 28.07.2011 was sent to the petitioner on 21.07.2011 and the same was served on him on 24.07.2011. This Court specifically observed that on perusal of postal seal available in the acknowledgement card, the petitioner received it on 24.07.2011 but at the time of putting his signature wrongly mentioned the date as 24.11.2011.

5. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the acknowledgement card dated 24.11.2011 was relating to service of final order passed under Section 87 proceedings dated 12.08.2011 and it was not relating to the notice of enquiry. When this Court based on postal seal available on the acknowledgement card came to the conclusion that the acknowledgement card produced before this Court was relating to notice dated 21.07.2011, the applicant/petitioner is not entitled to say that what was perused by this Court was acknowledgement card relating to service of award copy dated 12.08.2011. When postal acknowledgement card is identified based on the postal seal with date available in the acknowledgement card, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/petitioner cannot be accepted.

6. The date of postal seal will certainly prevail over the date mentioned by the petitioner in the acknowledgement card while putting his signature. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/petitioner cannot be accepted and there is no error apparent on the face of record in coming to the conclusion that postal acknowledgement card perused by this Court relating to the notice dated 21.07.2011 and the same was served on petitioner on 24.07.2011 well prior to the enquiry dated fixed on 28.0