IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 9-2-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.6080 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 Thirupathi .. Petitioner vs 1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies Vellore District Vellore 2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies 44, Pudhupettai Road Thirupathur Vellore District Vellore 3.The Special Officer C-25/45, Devalapuram, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Devalapuram, Ambur Taluk, Vellore District Vellore .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Vellore, made in C.T.A.No.1/2004 dated 27.10.2006 confirming the proceedings of the third respondent made in Tha.Thee.9/2002-03 SABA dated 14.5.2003 and quash the order dated 27.10.2006 and further direct the respondents to pay the amount so far deducted from the salary of the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.Su.Srinivasan For Respondents : Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya AGP for RR1 and 2 Mr.P.S.Sivashanmuga- sundaram for R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the Cooperative Tribunal (Principal District Court), Vellore, in C.T.A.No.1 of 2004 dated 27.10.2006. 2.The writ petition was admitted on 20.2.2007. Pending disposal of the writ petition, this Court initially granted interim injunction and subsequently, the said injunction was vacated by an order dated 14.12.2007. On notice from this Court, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit supporting the Tribunal's order. Since the entire records relating to the case were not filed, this Court directed the original records to be summoned from the Tribunal. Accordingly, the original records were called for by the Registry in CTA No.1 of 2004 and circulated along with the writ petition. 3.The case of the petitioner was that he was surcharged under Sec.87 by the Deputy Registrar, the second respondent herein, vide proceedings in Surcharge No.9/2002-03 dated 14.5.2003. In the order of surcharge, it was stated that the petitioner was responsible for improper sanction of loans and not recovering the loans from the loanees, and in that view of the matter, in respect of six charges, the loss caused to the society was assessed, and the amount was worked out to Rs.2,90,265/-. 4.The petitioner preferred an appeal under Sec.152 before the Cooperative Tribunal. In the grounds of appeal filed in CTA No.1/2004, the petitioner contended that he was not given a copy of Sec.81 report before the surcharge proceedings, and the loans sanctioned by him were in accordance with the bylaws of the society, and the petitioner was not liable to pay the amount. He also stated that he has been charge-sheeted departmentally and was reverted from the post of Secretary to Clerk by way of penalty. In that view of the matter, he sought for setting aside the order of surcharge proceedings. 5.The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 27.10.2006, held that there was a timeframe for completing surcharge proceedings, and the petitioner did not give proper reply, and he did not accept the charges; but, however, he stated that sufficient steps were to be taken for recovering the loan dues. It was also stated that the Government has announced an amnesty scheme for recovering the dues in respect of agricultural loans, and therefore no legal steps can be taken to recover the amount since the loans sanctioned on this head have been cancelled by the State Government. It was further stated that the question of recovering the same amount from the petitioner will not arise, and that would amount to recovering twice the amount due to the society. But, the Tribunal did not accept the said contention on the ground that no documents were filed in respect of the loan waiver by the State Government, and since he did not adhere to the circular in granting the loan, the loss is caused, and therefore, there was no question of interfering with the surcharge proceedings. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent Society, a justification was made in respect of the surcharge proceedings. It was also stated that the petitioner being a Secretary, did not exercise due diligence in taking legal action for recovering the amounts due to the society. But, with reference to the waiver of agricultural loan by the State Government under the amnesty scheme introduced, the counter affidavit is silent. 7.Today when the matter is called, a specific question was put to Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent, as to whether there was a loan waiver scheme in respect of the agricultural loan and whether the society was aware of such scheme. The learned Counsel stated that no doubt, decrees were passed against the agriculturists who took loan, and in view of the decrees, the society will have to forward those applications to the State Government for claiming the benefit of waiver, and until such time, the petitioner cannot have the benefit of the same. In any event, the issue raised by the petitioner is crucial namely the introduction of amnesty scheme by the State Government and the waiver of the cooperative loan. If that is true, then the liability of the petitioner to the extent may got reduced. In surcharge proceedings, only the civil liability of an employee is gone into. In so far as negligence in discharging his work is concerned, he had also been punished by an appropriate departmental proceedings. Since the appeal arose out of only the surcharge proceedings and the Tribunal did not consider this aspect by giving notice to both the parties, it is a fit case where the matter should be remanded back for fresh disposal by the Tribunal, and the parties are allowed to file appropriate statements including documents on the question of waiver of such loans by the State Government. 8.In the light of the above, the order in C.T.A.No.1 of 2004 dated 27.10.2006, will stand set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Cooperative Tribunal (Principal District Court), Vellore, for fresh disposal in accordance with law and on the basis of the observations made herein. 9.Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs stand closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar nsv To: 1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies Vellore District Vellore https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies 44, Pudhupettai Road Thirupathur Vellore District Vellore 3.The Special Officer C-25/45, Devalapuram, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Devalapuram, Ambur Taluk, Vellore District Vellore 4.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. 1 cc to Mr.SU.Srinivasan, Advocate, Sr.No.8824 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.8569 WP No.6080 of 2007 RSM {CO} TP/17.2.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/