Prabakaran Vs the Chengalpattu Housing Board Society

against the decree and judgment passed in C.M.A.No.17 of 2010 dated 28/6/2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu whereby confirmed the order passed by the second respondent in his Proceedings in

¶16

Tha.Thee.No.8/2008-2009 “E” dated 24/9/2010.

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Page No:1/6

¶19

Civil Revision Petition No.4846 of 2024

¶20

For petitioner ... Mr.C.Prakasam For respondents ... Mr.D.Gopal Government Advocate for R.R.1 and 2.

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Challenging the impugned order dated 28/6/2024 of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu passed by the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal in C.M.A.No.17 of 2010 as against the surcharge proceedings, present revision is filed.

¶24

The brief background of facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:-

¶25

Pursuant to the enquiry, under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, surcharge proceedings were initiated and three charges were framed against the revision petitioner, viz., (i). he has purchased more lands, other than the value fixed by the Superior Officers, thereby, a huge amount of Rs.6,21,13,650/- has been misappropriated; (ii). there was a misappropriation to the tune of Rs.10,50,56,550/- and there was

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Page No:2/6

¶28

Civil Revision Petition No.4846 of 2024

¶29

a misappropriation to the tune of Rs.16,01,760/-.

¶30

The Enquiry Officer recorded a finding against the revision petitioner and ordered for recovery of amount. Challenging the said finding, appeal has been filed before the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu. Vide, order, dated 28/6/2024, the learned Principal District Judge, has dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground that appeal is pending for the last fourteen years and held that the petitioner has not produced the records and both the petitioner and respondents have failed to submit their arguments

¶31

and further, alleged malpractice which resulted in loss to the public Institution cannot be ignored, and dismissed the Co-operative Miscellaneous Appeal. Challenging the same, present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶32

Heard Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Gopal, Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶33

When serious allegations have been raised, enquiry is said to have been conducted and recorded a finding to the effect that huge amount has been allegedly misappropriated in purchasing the lands, Appellate Court ought to have gone into the merits. Without doing so, merely on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:3/6

¶34

Civil Revision Petition No.4846 of 2024

¶35

petitioner's contentions and without verifying the records, findings have been confirmed. Such an order in view of this Court is erroneous and therefore, set aside.

¶36

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the First Appellate Court. The Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, is directed to find out whether there is any willful negligence to attract the proceedings under Section 87 of the Act and decide the appeal on merits, and in accordance with law, within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording opportunity to both sides.

¶37

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶38

3/1/2025

¶39

mvs.

¶40

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

Page No:4/6