SUSEELAN Vs. THE SPECIAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2006 passed in C.M.A.(C.S)No.69 of 2002 by the Co-operative Tribunal (District Judge), Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil confirming the award dated 28.03.2001 passed in Thava.No.2 of 2000 by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

(2.) The short facts, leading to filing of this Civil Revision Petition is as follows:- The petitioner herein was working as Special Officer of Arumanai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank at Arumanai from 04.09.1991 to 15.07.1994. During his tenureship in the year 1993-1994, it is alleged that he increased salaries and other benefits to certain employees/salesmen without obtaining administrative permission from the competent authority, which resulted in initiating the enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and on the basis of the enquiry report, the second respondent passed an order dated 28.03.2001 under Section 87 of the Act holding that the petitioner caused loss to the Bank by paying salaries to certain employees without obtaining administrative sanction. Subsequently, the second respondent passed surcharge proceedings in Thava.No.2 of 2000 dated 28.03.2001 against the petitioner. Challenging the same, she filed an appeal in C.M.A.C.S.No.69 of 2002, before the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Tribunal, Kanyakumari, on various grounds. However, the appellate Court also confirmed the order of the second respondent in Thava.No.2 of 2000 dated 28.03.2001. As against the concurrent findings, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner specifically assail the orders impugned in this Civil Revision Petition on the ground that as per the proviso to Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the enquiry should have been completed within six months from the date of initiation. However, in the case on hand, the enquiry was commenced on 20.06.2000 and ought to have been completed on 20.12.2000, but the same was completed on 28.03.2001. Further, if at all, the respondents want to continue the proceedings against the petitioner, they should have obtained permission from the higher authority, which they did not do so. In support of her contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment reported in 2000 (II) CTC 659, Ekambaram Vs. Co-operative Tribunal-cum- District Judge and also raised many other points to quash the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.