LAWS(MAD)-2012-2-286

TAMIL NADU COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED REP BY ITS SECRETARY Vs. M KRISHNASAMY

Decided On February 21, 2012
TAMIL NADU COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY Appellant
V/S
M. KRISHNASAMY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the third respondent, namely, Special Tribunal for Cooperative Society Cases, Chennai dated 04.04.2007 made in C.A.No.22/2004, with a prayer to quash the same.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the first respondent herein was employed as Special Officer in Tamil Nadu Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited [hereinafter referred to as 'TANFED'] between 07.08.1992 and 30.09.1994. During his tenure, the first respondent alleged to have caused loss to the TANFED along with other Special Officers and as a result, an enquiry was conducted under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 [hereinafter referred to as 'Act']. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer's report, surcharge proceedings have been initiated under Section 87 of the Act by the second respondent herein. THE said surcharge proceeding was challenged by the first respondent by preferring an appeal in Cooperative Appeal No.22/2004 before the Special Tribunal for Cooperative Society Cases, Chennai and the Tribunal allowed the said appeal by the order dated 04.04.2007 and set aside the surcharge order on the ground of violation of statutory provisions and also on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Being aggrieved against the said order, the present writ petition is filed with the above said prayer.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.K.Durairaj, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. It is contended that the Tribunal has considered the points raised by the first respondent elaborately by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the Tribunal has pointed out that the surcharge proceedings was initiated and commenced on 25.04.2000 and the said proceedings ought to have been completed within a period of six months as contemplated under Second Proviso to Section 87(1) of the Act i.e., on or before 24.10.2000, but in the instant case, the surcharge order was passed only on 19.01.2004 and as such, the Tribunal has rightly held that there is a violation of statutory provisions as contemplated under the Act and the impugned surcharge order was ultimately set aside. It is further submitted that in respect of the bar of limitation, the decision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner was rendered only subsequent to the passing of the order by the Tribunal. It is contended that the surcharge order not only suffers from violation of statutory provisions, but also suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal to the effect that the explanation submitted by the first respondent dated 20.06.2003 was not considered.