IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on:24.11.2025 Pronounced on:05.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP. No.1930 of 2021 and CMP. No.14976 of 2021 R.Rajagopalan Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Myladuthurai Circle, Myladuthurai – 609 001.

2.The Administrator, O.S. No.53 Local Fund Audit Staff and Mayiladuthurai Divisional Level Panchayat, Union Staff Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., Katcherry Road, Mayiladuthurai, Myiladuthurai District.

(2^nd respondent impleaded vide Court order dated 13.02.2024)

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 21.01.2021 passed in C.O.C.M.A. No.13 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Mayiladuthurai whereby confirmed the order passed by the respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1957/2013 Va.Tha-Award No.1/2013, dated

12.09.2014.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents : Mr.N.Muthuvel, Government Advocate for R1 Mr.J.Daniel, Government Advocate for R2 **********

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the order of the first respondent/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, under Section 87 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (in short 'Act'). 2. I have heard Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.N.Muthuvel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the first respondent and Mr.J.Daniel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent.

3. Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as the Special Officer of several Co-operative Societies and in respect of one of such Co-operative Society where the petitioner was in charge viz., Local Fund Audit Department Employees Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society, the first respondent ordered an enquiry under Section 81, for alleged irregularity committed by the petitioner. Mr.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it was one Baskar who was working as the employee in the said Society and it was he who had misappropriated the funds of the Society, by issuing irregular loans to members. Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further point out that it was only the petitioner who found out the said irregularities being committed by the said Baskar and sent reports to the respondent on 17.03.2014 and 07.03.2014. The learned counsel would therefore state that without taking any action against the said Baskar, the first respondent has initiated proceedings against the revision petitioner.

4. The learned counsel would further state that the petitioner had to discharge duties as Special Officer in respect of many other Cooperative Societies, apart from and in addition to his routine work of a Senior Inspector of the respondent. The learned counsel would therefore state that the petitioner was not in a position to look after minute and day to day transaction of each and every Society and contends that when a proper resolution had been passed with regard to the decision to advance loans to various members and the cheques had already been countersigned, merely because the petitioner has signed the cheques, for issuing the loans to the members and had admitted to his signature during the enquiry proceedings, it would not be sufficient to saddle liability on the petitioner.

5. Mr.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner, would rely on the following decisions in support of his contentions:

(i) P.Ilango, I.A.S., retired Vs. Administrator MRK Cooperative Sugar Mills, Sethiyathoppu, reported in 2014 (3) MLJ (M) 575:

(ii) K.Rathinam Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (Housing) Vellore and others, in C.R.P. (NPD). No.654 of

2012 dated 20.11.2017;

(iii) V.Janarthanan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-op Societies and others, in CRP