Madras High Court
V.Pandiyan vs The Deputy Registrar Of ... on 14 July, 2021
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1098 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 14.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.1098 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013
V.Pandiyan : Petitioner/Appellant
.. Vs ..
1.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Lalgudi,
Trichy District.
2.Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Musiri Taluk,
Trichy District.
3.The Special Officer,
Kattur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank,
Kattur,
Lalgudi Taluk,
Trichy District. : Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to allow this Civil Revision Petition by
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1098 of 2013
setting aside the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge,
Tiruchirappalli in C.M.A.(CS) No.16 of 2009, dated 21.07.2012.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gurunathan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganandam
Additional Government Pleader
---
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of learned
Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, in C.M.A.(CS) No.16 of 2009, dated
21.07.2012.
2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr.D.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents.
3.The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Civil
Revision Petition are as follows:
3.1.The revision petitioner is the former Secretary of Kattur Primary
Agricultural Co-operative Bank. During audit inspection, it was found that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1098 of 2013
there were some financial irregularities in the bank and surcharge order dated
31.01.2000 was passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies
holding that the revision petitioner and the Cashier of the bank are
responsible for the amount jointly and severely. At the instance of the Cashier
of the bank, the surcharge order dated 31.01.2000 was set aside for violation
of principles of natural justice and the matter was remitted to the Surcharge
Officer to proceed afresh after furnishing the copies of the documents and
statements of witnesses to the Cashier.
3.2.After remand, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Musiri, was appointed as fresh Enquiry Officer and fresh notice was sent to
the revision petitioner and the Cashier by name T.Govindaraj. When fresh
notice was issued to the revision petitioner and the Cashier of the bank, the
revision petitioner submitted his objection by stating that no surcharge
proceedings can be initiated after seven years. It is pertinent to mention that
the revision petitioner has not raised any specific objection disputing the
allegations and charges against the revision petitioner. The objection of the
revision petitioner appears to be on the basis that the order of remand was at
the instance of the Cashier of the bank by name T.Govindaraj and that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1098 of 2013
therefore, the order of remand cannot be taken to extend the period of
limitation to complete the proceedings.
3.3.After giving sufficient opportunity to the revision petitioner, the
surcharge order was passed by the Deputy Registrar on 02.01.2009. The
charges against the petitioner are specific. The Deputy Registrar after holding
enquiry and considering the records found that the revision petitioner and the
Cashier of the bank had caused loss to the society to the tune of Rs.3,20,345/-
by misappropriating the said amount. The finding is to the effect that both of
them have colluded together and that therefore, they are jointly and severely
liable for the loss caused to the society to the tune of Rs.3,20,345/-. The
learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, confirmed the order of the
Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies after considering the entire records
and the statement of revision petitioner and the Cashier during surcharge
proceedings.
4.The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted
that the subsequent surcharge notice dated 23.01.2008 after a gap of four
years vitiate the whole proceedings and that therefore, the order of appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1098 of 2013
authority is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner then submitted that the petitioner had been included unnecessarily
based on the statement of the Cashier and that there is no evidence against the
petitioner involving him in the financial irregularity. The learned Counsel
then submitted that the criminal case initiated against the petitioner was
ended in acquittal and that the Cashier was also convicted by the trial Court
and acquitted by the High Court and that therefore, there is no piece of
evidence against the petitioner to make him liable for the charges. The
learned Counsel also relied upon few judgments and submitted that there is
no findings against the petitioner that he was willfully negligent so as to
initiate surcharge proceedings against the petitioner.
5.The petitioner is the former Secretary of the cooperative bank. The
charges against the Cashier and the petitioner are specific that the Secretary
and Cashier have failed to make entries in relevant registers in respect of the
savings bank account and fixed deposit account and misappropriated a fairly
larger sum. Though the petitioner put a blame on the Cashier, the revision
petitioner has not even disputed the specific allegation made against him in
response to the second show-cause notice pursuant to the order of remand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1098 of 2013
6.The petitioner has not produced before this Court the objections
which the petitioner had raised in response to the surcharge notice issued
earlier. From the records, it is seen that the petitioner has no valid defence to
escape from the charges. The duties and responsibilities of the Secretary were
established in the proceedings.
7.The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
that the whole proceedings is vitiated on account of the delay in completion
of proceedings cannot be accepted. It is admitted that the enquiry was
completed and the surcharge order was originally passed without giving room
for any unnecessary delay. No prejudice is specifically pleaded on account of
delay. The surcharge order originally passed was not even challenged by the
revision petitioner. The earlier order was passed on 31.01.2000 which was
well within the period of limitation. Since the surcharge order was set aside
and the matter was remanded once again to the Surcharge Officer, the
proceedings after remand should be treated as proceedings in continuation of
the earlier order and that there is no scope for raising a defence that the
subsequent order passed by the Surcharge Officer is liable to be set aside on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1098 of 2013
the ground of limitation. Merely because the petitioner was acquitted in the
criminal case, it cannot be said that the surcharge order is liable to be set
aside as a consequence. Before the Criminal court, the charges have to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt. When surcharge order is passed and
liability is fixed for dereliction of duty or willful negligence for the loss
caused to the society, the issue has to be considered so as to fix the
responsibility and make good the loss to the society. The revision petitioner
did not participate in the fresh enquiry after receiving notice. He has no
explanation to offer even though charges against the petitioner are specific.
From the surcharge order, it can be seen that the amount has been
misappropriated by the Secretary along with the Cashier. The Secretary, who
has to oversee, has signed the accounts. The process by which amount has
been swindled from the society is evident from the records considered by the
Surcharge Officer. In the names of several individuals, amounts have been
withdrawn without corresponding entries in their savings accounts. This
cannot be done by the Cashier alone without the cooperation of the Secretary
of the society. In a connected proceedings, this Court had occasion to notice
that the same petitioner has withdrawn amounts by issuing self-cheques from
the savings bank accounts of the bank. Therefore, the surcharge proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1098 of 2013
against the Secretary is not the first one. Having regard to the nature of
irregularity, this Court is also convinced that the surcharge order as against
the petitioner cannot be interfered with.
8.The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner by relying
upon a judgment of this Court in A.Janakiraman vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-
operative Society reported in 2009 (6) MLJ 1051 submitted that the report
under Section 81 of the Cooperative Societies Act was not at all furnished to
the petitioner and that therefore, the surcharge proceedings initiated against
the petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice. This Court has
already found that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity at every
stage. As a matter of fact, in response to the surcharge notice after the order
of remand, the revision petitioner has not given any explanation or objection
to the charges except pointing out the delay in completing the enquiry. No
prejudice is caused to the petitioner even if it is proved that the report under
Section 81 of the Act was not furnished to the petitioner. The charges are
specific against the petitioner. When no attempt was made by the petitioner
to get the report at the relevant point of time or allege prejudice that has been
caused to the petitioner on account of failing to furnish the report under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1098 of 2013
Section 81 of the Act, this Court is unable to appreciate the contention of the
learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the Secretary
of the Society. He has signed the accounts. He is supposed to verify the
vouchers, day books and ledgers. Hence, the contention of the learned
Counsel appearing for the petitioner that he is not responsible for the
misappropriation to the tune of several lakhs has no legal basis. The learned
Counsel relied upon several judgments and submitted that there is no specific
finding against the petitioner to establish willful negligence and that
therefore, the surcharge order cannot be sustained against the petitioner.
1. S.Ramadevi vs. Special Officer reported in 2016 (6) MLJ 485
(relevant paras 25 & 26)
2. Kothur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Ltd., vs.
Sriramulu and others reported in AIR 2005 Mad 85 (Relevant paras
7 & 8)
3. S.Subramanian vs. Deputy Registrar reported in 2002 (3) LW 185
( relevant para 12)
9.The petitioner is the Secretary of the society and his duties and
responsibilities are specified. The charge against the petitioner are specific.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1098 of 2013
There is a clear finding by the Surcharge Officer that the petitioner is directly
responsible for the misappropriation. When it is a case of misappropriation
and it is found that the Secretary of the society has fraudulently
misappropriated a huge sum with the connivance of the Cashier, the
judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner are not helpful to the petitioner. When the petitioner has not given
any specific explanation to the surcharge notice and no solid ground is raised
in the revision petition to vitiate the surcharge proceedings, this Court is
unable to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner. It is to be seen that the duties and responsibilities of the
revision petitioner has been fixed and that the petitioner who has signed the
account approving the entries cannot wriggle out of his responsibilities. In
this case, the deficiency caused to the socoeity is not disputed. Hence, the
petitioner without any acceptable explanation making the Cashier solely
responsible for the loss cannot succeed by pleading ignorance.
10.As a result, this Court finds no legal infirmity or irregularity in the
order of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the
surcharge order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1098 of 2013
dated 02.01.2009. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No
costs.
14.07.2021
SRM (1/2)
To
1.The Principal District Court,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Lalgudi,
Trichy District.
3.Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Musiri Taluk,
Trichy District.
4.The Special Officer,
Kattur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank,
Kattur,
Lalgudi Taluk,
Trichy District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1098 of 2013
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
SRM
Order made in
C.R.P.(MD)No.1098 of 2013
14.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
