IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:29 .07.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.No.4416 of 2008 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2008 G.Senthilvel . . Petitioner Vs 1.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Nagapattinam. 2.The Special Officer ON3, Nagapattinam Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., 40, Neela South Street, Nagapattinam. 3.P.Mohan 4.S.Thimilan .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings initiated by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.2073/2007 Ci.Ka. Dated 26.12.2007 and the orders of the fourth respondent dated 30.01.2008 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Veerakathiravan For Respondents : Mr.V.Arun for R1 Additional Government Pleader Mr.I.Paranthaman for R2 Mr.M.S.Palanisamy for R4 No appearance for R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER By consent the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is the Secretary of the second respondent Co- operative Society from 14.07.1999. The first respondent by his order in Na.Ka.No.2073/07 Ci.Ka dated 06.07.2007 issued a charge memo. One Thirumagan, who was a Sub Registrar of Co-operative Society, was appointed as an enquiry officer and 30 days time was granted for the enquiry officer to complete his enquiry. Admittedly, the enquiry officer on completing the enquiry, submitted his report on 06.09.2007. But, the first respondent has found certain defects in the said report. Therefore, the first respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.219/2008 Ku.Na. dated 29.01.2008, in exercise of his power under Section 81(5) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, (hereinafter referred as the Act) withdrew the said enquiry from the file of the enquiry officer and thereafter, he appointed another enquiry officer by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2073/2007/Ci.ka dated 26.12.2007. This time, one S. Thimilan was appointed as Enquiry Officer who is the fourth respondent in this writ petition. Challenging the said proceedings of the first respondent dated 26.12.2007 in Na.Ka.No.2073/2007 Ci.Ka, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition. 3. Heard Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.V.Arun, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, Mr.I.Paranthaman, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Mr.M.S.Palanisamy learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 4. There is no representation for the third respondent, who is retired Deputy Registrar of co-opeartive societies. Since the order which is being passed in this writ petition would not be detrimental to the interest of the third respondent, there is no necessity to hear the third respondent. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that under Section 81(3) of the Act, the first respondent is duty bound to communicate the enquiry officers report to the Society concerned and for further action; but, in this case, in stead of following the said procedure, the first respondent has cancelled the earlier proceedings of the enquiry officer and he has appointed another enquiry officer to hold enquiry in respect of the same allegations for which the enquiry was already held. He would further submit that though it is stated in the counter that fresh enquiry has been ordered as provided in Section 81(5) of the Act, the said stand taken by the respondent cannot be accepted since Section 81(5) of the Act would be applicable only in respect of pending https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proceedings. He further submitted that Section 81(4) of the Act, which provides for limitation for enquiry, cannot be allowed to be defeated by the respondents. If fresh enquiry is allowed to continue, it will run counter to Section 81(4) of the Act and therefore for these reasons, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned order of the first respondent ordering for a fresh enquiry should be quashed. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the first respondent has not cancelled the earlier order directing enquiry. But, according to him, what has been done under the impugned order is, only the cancellation of the enquiry officers report as it was highly defective. He would further submit that therefore fresh enquiry to be held by newly appointed enquiry officer is only within the competence of the first respondent under Section 81(5) of the Act. He would further submit that the limitation prescribed under Section 81(4) is only directory and therefore on that ground proceedings cannot be quashed. 7. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that he would support the stand taken by the learned Additional Government Pleader. The learned Additional Government Pleader would produce the file relating to the case for perusal of this Court. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the records. 9. Of course, it is true that after the completion of one enquiry, there is no question of withdrawal of the enquiry and appointing another enquiry officer under Section 81(5) of the Act as the said provision would be applicable only in respect of pending proceedings. In this case, therefore it is to be seen whether the appointment of fresh enquiry officer is in continuation of the earlier proceedings or it is a proceedings altogether afresh. The records placed before me would go to show that the first respondent has disagreed with the earlier enquiry officers report since the order of the earlier enquiry officer contains lot of defects. When that be so, I am of the view that the first respondent is competent to disagree with the said report. Knowing fully well that earlier enquiry officers report is highly defective, the first respondent cannot simply accept the same in a blind and mechanical manner. As a statutory authority, it is his duty to look into the report either to agree with the same or not to agree with the same. If the first respondent finds lot of inherent defects in the enquiry officers report, he can very well order for the withdrawal of the enquiry report and to order for fresh enquiry by some other officer. In those circumstances, it would be considered a continuation of the earlier proceeding and the same shall not be considered as a fresh proceeding altogether. In this case, the first respondent had found lot of defects in the enquiry held by the first enquiry officer, hence the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ first respondent withdraw the proceedings and ordered for the fresh enquiry by another enquiry officer. Therefore, it is only a continuation of the earlier proceedings and it cannot be considered to be a separate fresh proceedings. 10. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the limitation prescribed under Section 81 (3) of the Act cannot be allowed to be defeated by ordering for such a fresh enquiry. He would submit that in the absence of any extension of time granted by the first respondent as provided under Section 81(3) of the Act, the proceeding is liable to be quashed. In my considered opinion, the said contention is also cannot be accepted for the simple reason, as more than once it has been held that the limitation contemplated under Section 81(3) of the Act is only directory and not mandatory. Therefore, on that ground also, the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed. 11. From the facts placed before me, I am able to see that a total sum of Rs.42,00,000/- is involved in this issue. The money is not the money of a private individual, but, public money. When the first respondent, a public authority, feels that an enquiry should be conducted to find out the manner in which the public fund has been siphoned out, this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot put any spokes into the said proceedings. The power of judicial review in these maters is very limited. 12. For the above reasons, I find no merit at all in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar jikr To 1.The Deputy Registrar of co-operative societies, Nagapattinam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Special Officer, ON3, Nagapattinam Urban Coopertive Credit Society Ltd., 40, Neela South Street, Nagapattinam. 1 CC To Mr.M.S.Palanisamy , Advocate, SR NO.40713 1 CC To Mr.I.aranthaman , Advocate, SR NO.41207 1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR NO.41018 W.P.No.4416 of 2008 rsm(co) pmk/8.8.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/