BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.10.2025 CORAM :

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and CMP.(MD)Nos.15202, 16053, 17054 & 17059 of 2025

1.Dharmaraj ... Petitioner in CRP.(MD)No.2551 of 2025 2.S.Kalimuthu ... Petitioner in CRP.(MD)No.2726 of 2025 Vs.

The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, No.20, Kamatchiamman Kovil Street, Aranthangi Town & Post, Pudukkottai District.

... Respondent in both CRPs.

Common Prayer : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed in CMA.(CS)Nos.08 & 07 of 2015 dated 06.07.2017 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai.

For Petitioners : No Appearance (in both CRPs.)

For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinodh, (in both CRPs.) Government Advocate.

COMMON ORDER

The petitioners, erstwhile employees of Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Soceity, have filed these civil revision petitions as against the order passed by the Tribunal in CMA.(CS)Nos.08 & 07 of 2015 dated 06.07.2017.

2.The petitioner in CRP.(MD)No.2551 of 2025 was the Senior Clerk of the Society and the petitioner in CRP.(MD)No. 2726 of 2025 was the Special Officer of the Society. With regard to the affairs of the Society, enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’] was contemplated and the enquiry reveals that the petitioners colluded with another employee, who was in-charge of the Secretary of the Society along with one Rowthar Naina Mohammed, had created bogus documents as if 9,384 bags of paddy each 60 kgm were stored in the Tamil Nadu Warehouse Corporation, Dindigul and disbursed a sum of Rs.60,88,000/- as loans in the name of 21 persons including the said Rowthar Naina Mohammed, in between 13.03.2012 to 19.06.2012. The loan applications, loan bonds and the documents produced for opening savings Bank Account in the names of 21 beneficiaries, were found to be bogus. The enquiry officer has examined all those 21 beneficiaries and thereafter submitted his detailed report, on 17.05.2013, based on which, surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Act was initiated as against the petitioners and two others in the year 2013. Surcharge notice was issued on 09.12.2013 and the petitioners have also made a request for issuance of certain documents. The documents were also issued to them on 25.04.2014 and 14.06.2015. Summons issued for the enquiry was also received by the petitioners. On 06.06.2014 the petitioners have sought for permission of the enquiry officer for engaging a Lawyer on behalf of themselves, which was also allowed. The petitioners were represented through a learned counsel throughout the proceedings under Section 87 of the Act. Enquiry was conducted on 25.06.2014, 10.07.2014 and 22.07.2014 and

06.08.2014. The petitioners’ counsel have also cross examined the Management witnesses. Thereafter, final order under Section 87 of the Act was passed by the respondent, on 25.08.2014. As against the said order, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 152 of the Act and the same was entertained and disposed in CMA. (CS)Nos.08 & 07 of 2015 on 06.07.2017. Against those orders, the petitioners have initially preferred writ petitions and this Court has also entertained the same and granted an order of interim stay. Pursuant to the orders of the Division Bench, those writ petitions, which are filed against the orders of the Tribunal were converted as civil revision petitions and accordingly, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are also converted and listed for hearing before this Court.

3.When CRP.(MD)No.2551 of 2025 was taken up for hearing, on 19.09.2025, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that yet another writ petition connected with this issue is pending in WP.(MD)No.1306 of 2018 and requested to take up the revision along with the said writ petition. Accordingly, this Court directed