IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA and CMP.Nos.23142 and 23598 of 2024 P.N.Karunanidhi Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District.

2.The Management, Joint Registrar/Managing Director, Tiruvannamalai District Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd., Tiruvannamalai.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER To set aside the order of the Co-operative Tribunal cum Principal District Judge Court, Tiruvannamali, Dated 09.07.2024 in CMA.No.7 of 2019 confirming the order of the 1^st respondent dated 10.04.2017 in Na.Ka.No.6206/2016 Sa.ba/Tha.Thee.No.04/2016-2017.

For Petitioner(s): M/s.Balan Haridas For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Tamilnidhi, A.G.P., for R1 Mr.N.Muthuvel, G.A., for R2

ORDER

The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order of the Appellate Court in CMA.No.7 of 2019 dated 09.07.2024 confirming the surcharge order dated 10.04.2017, passed by the first respondent/Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

2.The petitioner joined the services of the District Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores on 18.01.1986, as a Packer. On bifurcation of the Vellore District in 1997, the petitioner was deputed to the second respondent Society, on 24.07.1997. The Services of the petitioner were regularised by the Government Order dated 31.07.2007. The petitioner worked as Godown Keeper for the period from 01.09.2014 to 31.03.2015, in the Crackers Godown and he superannuated on 31.03.2015. While so, based on the second respondent's enquiry report dated 11.07.2016, the first respondent initiated surcharge proceedings under Section 87, of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, against the petitioner in respect of the alleged stock deficit of gunny bags amounting to Rs.6,14,893/- The petitioner participated in the Section 87 proceedings by submitting his explanation. The petitioner in his explanation stated that the gunny bags were damaged owing to rain water seepage from the terrace in the Godown.

3.The petitioner further stated that he wrote 2 letters to the second respondent, to salvage the gunny bags at the earliest before it could loose its value. According to the petitioner, the person, who took over charge from him received the gunny bags and that the gunny bags were very much available then. The petitioner stated that the gunny bags got damaged only because of the inaction of the second respondent, and hence, the surcharge proceedings against him were unsustainable. However, the first respondent passed the surcharge order on 10.04.2017, holding that the petitioner was liable for stock deficit of gunny bags to the tune of Rs.6,14,893/-. The petitioner challenged the said surcharge order before the Appellate Tribunal in CMA.No.7 of 2019. The petitioner raised several grounds including the violation of the principles of natural justice in not furnishing the Section 81 enquiry report.

4. The petitioner further contended that the surcharge proceedings were vitiated since no finding of wilful negligence was recorded for the alleged loss caused by the petitioner to the Society. Despite the petitioner's aforesaid objections, the Appellate Court on 09.07.2024, dismissed the appeal confirming the surcharge order dated 10.04.2017, of the first respondent. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner has filed the above civil revision petition for the aforesaid relief.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order was unsustainable for several reasons including violation of principles of natural justice, non-furnishing of Section 81 enquiry report and failure to record a finding on wilful negligence, which is a sine qua non for passing the Surcharge Order.

6.On the facts of the case, the learned counsel submitted that the appellate Court erroneously rejected the contention of the petitioner that he had informed the higher authorities about the damage caused to the gunny bags due to seepage