Judgment : 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records in C.M.A. (C.S.) No.134 of 1989 dated 33. 1992 on the file of the second respondent confirming the order dated 4. 1988 of the third respondent in Na.ka.No.2803 of 1986 and to quash the same in so far as the petitioners herein are concerned. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners would contend that the first respondent is a corporate body registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and is managed by a committee constituted as per the rules and bye laws of the society; that the petitioners 1 to 4 and one Narayanasamy were functioning as Directors from 8. 1974 to 7. 1976; that in an alleged audit conducted under Sec.64 and in an enquiry held under Sec.65 of the Act, it came to be known that the committee members of the Pannaikadu Co-operative Stores Ltd. No.A1480, the first respondent herein committed breach of trust and caused deficiency in the assets of the stores by wilful negligence and fraudulent reduction of the assets of the society to the tune of Rs.1,12,978.39 under the said four heads and pursuant to the said enquiry, the first respondent applied to the third respondent to initiate surcharge proceedings under Sec.71 of the Act and on issue of a show cause notice dated 8. 1979, the third respondent called upon petitioners 1 to 4 and 10 others to explain regarding the charges and petitioners 1 to 4 also sent in their explanations on 29. 1979 with no enquiry conducted thereafter by the said authority. 4. The further contentions are that after seven years, the petitioners and others received notice of enquiry dated 3. 1988 from the third respondent calling for them to appear before him on 23. 1988 in adherence to which they appeared and submitted their written representations on that day itself and without properly appreciating the same, the third respondent held that the petitioners are responsible for the loss under heads 1, 2 and 4 for a sum of Rs.27,582.66 and directed the petitioners to remit the amount together with interest at 12 per cent per annum by its order dated 4. 1988. 1988. By the very same order, the third respondent for the balance amount that is Rs.76,690.93 and the petitioners would say that this amount is barred by the Law of Limitation. 5. The further case of the petitioners is that having become aggrieved the order of the third respondent dated 4. 1988, separate appeals had been preferred before the Special Tribunal in C.M.A. (C.S.) No.134 of 1989 and C.M.A. (C.S.) No.103 of 1989; that during the pendency of these appeals, the first respondent in CMA (CS) No.134 of 1989 having died, petitioners 5 to 9 herein were impleaded as respondents No.6 to 10 as the legal representatives of the deceased Narayanasamy; that the second respondent disposed of both the appeals by a common order dated 33. 1992 thereby concurring with the findings of the third respondent holding that the committee members were responsible for the loss brought forth in the audit report on account of wilful negligence on their part and directing them to compensate the loss barring the amount that was barred by the law of limitation; that aggrieved against the decree and judgment of the second respondent, the appellants in CMA (CS) No.134 of 1989 have come forward to file the writ petition on ground that the second respondent without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, had passed the impugned order dated 33. 1992 since according to the petitioners, they were left with no option but to approach this Court, by means of this writ petition. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed on the part of the first respondent, besides generally denying the averments of the writ petition, it would also specifically allege that the petitioners were incharge of the Stores; that under Sec.71 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 the third respondent initiated audit to be held and as per the audit report, an enquiry was conducted wherein the petitioners were found to be responsible for the loss alleged during the period of their management and hence passed the order dated 4. 1988 directing the petitioners to make good the loss sustained to the Stores at Pannaikadu to the tune of Rs.27,578; that a statutory appeal preferred before the Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases at Madurai having come to be dismissed confirming the order of the third respondent dated 4. 1988 directing the petitioners to make good the loss sustained to the Stores at Pannaikadu to the tune of Rs.27,578; that a statutory appeal preferred before the Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases at Madurai having come to be dismissed confirming the order of the third respondent dated 4. 1988 made in CMA (CS) No.134 of 1989 as per the judgment and decree of the Tribunal dated 33. 1992, the petitioners have resorted to this Court in filing this writ petition and because of the interim stay granted in W.M.P.No.21420 of 1992 dated 30.9.1992, the first respondent Stores was not able to recover the loss amount from the petitioners. 7. The further averments of the counter are that though the Society sustained a heavy loss to the tune of Rs.1,12,978.39, the third respondent in his proceeding restricted to Rs.27,578.66 and the same got confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 33. 1992 also, the rest of the amount of Rs.76,095.63 was deducted from the liability as time barred and Rs.8,238.81 is made to be paid by the three other Directors; that both the second and third respondents have rightly passed orders on enquiry and on appeal. 8. The further case of the respondents is that under four categories, the liability has been arrived at; that the amounts by all the four methods sustained on account of the petitioners’ mismanagement have been ordered to be paid to the Co-operative Societies and hence the order of the third respondent was quite reasonable and in accordance with law; that the allegations of the writ petition are only false and misleading; that just to drag on the recovery proceedings, the petitioners have instituted the above writ petition; that both the second and third respondents have properly appreciated the evidence in the proceeding conducted by the third respondent and confirmed by his order dated 9. 1988; that because of the loss on account of the mismanagement of the petitioners, the Stores is in a critical condition with loan liabilities without being able to recover from the loss till date. 9. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that under Sec.71 of the old Act viz., Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 surcharge proceedings were initiated against the petitioners and the petitioners were called upon to explain which was submitted by the petitioners on 29. 9. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that under Sec.71 of the old Act viz., Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 surcharge proceedings were initiated against the petitioners and the petitioners were called upon to explain which was submitted by the petitioners on 29. 1979 and the enquiry was conducted after seven years thereafter; that there cannot be any enquiry held beyond the period of six years; that in this case, a show cause notice was issued on 8. 1979; that the petitioners submitted their explanations on 29. 1979; that after a period of nine years that is on 3. 1988 further notice of enquiry was sent to the petitioners directing to appear on 23. 1988; that they submitted written reply to this notice also on 20.3.1988; that orders were passed on 4. 1988. The learned counsel would end up his argument ultimately remarking that no enquiry shall be held after the expiry of six years from the date of any act or omission referred to in this Act. 10. In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent would submit that the period of commission of offence was of the year 1974; that the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 7. 1975 and he submitted his report after enquiry on 110. 1975 and then the show cause notice was issued on 28. 1976; that subsequently, the Deputy Registrar gave an opportunity to the petitioners and passed an order on 13. 1977; that the proceedings were challenged before the Board by the petitioners in CMA (CS) No.103 and 134 of 1989 wherein by the common judgment, ordered deducting an amount of Rs.76,000, and it was confirmed by the second respondents order to compensate Rs.27,000; that all the proceedings were going on uninterruptedly; that the old Act uses the term ‘held’ and in the present Act, the corresponding Sec.87 uses the word ‘commences’; that wilful negligence is alleged to have been committed on the part of the petitioners while they were acting as Directors between the period 6. 1971 and 30.6.1974 for having misappropriated the funds of the society; that no such delay of six years or more has been caused for the enquiry to be held after the commission of the Act complained of; that both the above authorities have concurrently held the petitioners guilty and responsible to pay the said amount and hence the surcharge proceeding initiated against the petitioners for recovering the said amount is perfectly legal and would pray for dismissing the above writ petition with costs. 11. In clarification, the learned counsel for the petitioners would cite a judgment delivered in Ramachandran v. The Deputy Registrar, Dairying Trichy and two others Ramachandran v. The Deputy Registrar, Dairying Trichy and two others Ramachandran v. The Deputy Registrar, Dairying Trichy and two others, 1981 T.L.N.J. 292 wherein a single Judge of this Court, assessing wilful negligence and the surcharge proceeding initiated against the Ex-directors in the context of Sec.71 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 adhering to the facts of that case, arrived at the conclusion to hold that there has been a misconception of the ingredients of Sec.71 of the Act especially with regard to the expression ‘wilful negligence’ entertained by the second respondent therein and this obliges me to interfere in the writ proceedings and would accordingly allow those writ petitions filed by the petitioners therein. 12. From the above order, it is clear that the second respondent in those writ petitions had acted in misconception of the ingredients of Sec.71 of the Act regarding the expression ‘wilful negligence’ and hence based on the facts and circumstances connected to those cases that the learned single Judge has dealt with and the conclusions arrived at, but the facts and circumstances and the question involved in the case in hand are not similar to those facts. Therefore, the decision arrived at by the learned single Judge in the case cited above cannot be applied to the case in hand. 13. Assessing the case on merit taking into consideration the facts and circumstances encircling the whole affair and having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both it would be disclosed that the petitioners along with another Narayanasamy were functioning as the Directors of the first respondent Co-operative Society during the period from 8. 1974 to 7. 1974 to 7. 1976; that based on an audit report, it came to be known that on account of the wilful negligence and mischief played on the part of the petitioners and the said Narayanasamy, a loss to the tune of Rs.1,12,978.39 had been occasioned to the society and hence on an application by the first respondent to the third respondent revealing the facts, the third respondent initiated surcharge proceedings under Sec.71 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and issued the show cause notice dated 8. 1979, the third respondent called upon the petitioners to explain for which explanations were submitted on the part of the petitioners on 29. 1979 and on an enquiry held later, conclusions were arrived at to the effect of holding the petitioners responsible for the loss under certain heads only to the extent of Rs.27,582.66 and the respondents directed the petitioners to remit the said amount together with interest at 12 per cent per annum by its order dated 4. 1988 and by the same order, the third respondent also held the other committee members responsible for the balance amount of Rs.76,690.93 from out of the total amount of Rs.1,12,978.39 that was originally arrived as the loss under different heads in the audit report. 14. That testifying and challenging the order, appeals were preferred before the second respondent Tribunal and since one of the appellants therein having passed away, impleading the legal representatives of the deceased Narayanasamy, the second respondent disposed of the appeals by a common order dated 33. 1992 thus concurring with the findings of the third respondent thereby holding that the committee members were responsible for the loss as disclosed in the audit report on account of the wilful negligence committed on their part and directing them to compensate the loss barring certain amount that was barred by the Law of Limitation; that only aggrieved against the said order of the Tribunal, the appellants in CMA (CS) No.134 of 1989 have come forward to file this writ petition seeking the relief extracted supra. 15. One of the major points urged on the part of the petitioners against the proceedings initiated against them discussed supra is the delay in holding the enquiry. 15. One of the major points urged on the part of the petitioners against the proceedings initiated against them discussed supra is the delay in holding the enquiry. It would specifically be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the law is that no enquiry shall be held after the expiry of six years from the date of any act or omission referred to in this Act. The point that is to be noted is that it is the initiation of the enquiry or commencement of the enquiry that is relevant in the context of the enquiry which is meant here and the other point to be noted is that such an enquiry should not be instituted after six years from the date of any act or omission thereby meaning that it is the act or omission that is complained of which is the subject matter of the enquiry that is relevant and from the date of such act or omission for the commencement of the enquiry, there should not be a period of more than six years. It is an admitted case on, the part of the petitioners that the act complained of or the omission referred to during their tenure at the office is from 8. 1974 to 7. 1976 and as such, an enquiry by issue of the show cause had been commenced on 8. 1979 which is well within the period of six years. 16. It is further alleged that during pendency of the enquiry, some delay had been caused. About such delay caused during enquiry, the Act is silent nor anything brought forth on the part of the petitioners and hence within the stipulated period of six years as claimed on the part of the petitioners, the enquiry had been commenced from the date of commission of the delinquency and hence as argued on the part of the petitioners, it is not a case which is barred by limitation. Otherwise, regarding the recovery of surcharge proceedings initiated so far as the period that is barred by limitation, the appellate authority himself has condoned and only the rest of the amount, the petitioners have been required to pay with interest. Otherwise, regarding the recovery of surcharge proceedings initiated so far as the period that is barred by limitation, the appellate authority himself has condoned and only the rest of the amount, the petitioners have been required to pay with interest. The judgment earlier cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners reported in Ramachandran v. The Deputy Registrar, Dairying Trichy and two others Ramachandran v. The Deputy Registrar, Dairying Trichy and two others Ramachandran v. The Deputy Registrar, Dairying Trichy and two others, 1981 T.L.N.J. 292 has factually no application to this case and hence the decision arrived at therein is not applied to this case. 17. For all the above discussions held, it is quite evident that regarding the action instituted against the petitioners by the first respondent with the third respondent and the enquiry conducted by the third respondent and the conclusions arrived at by him and later, on appeal, the further conclusions arrived at on the part of the second respondent Tribunal are quite on the expected line wherein, only the limitation question has been highlighted on the part of the petitioners and no procedural irregularity or any inconsistency or infirmity in the enquiry held and the conclusions arrived at on the part of the third and second respondents respectively in passing their orders on enquiry or in appeal has been brought forth. There is no patent error or perversity in approach in so far as the orders passed by respondents 3 and 2 to the writ petition are concerned and hence the interference sought for by the petitioners in this writ petition is uncalled for. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to confirm both the orders passed by the third and second respondents respectively and they are confirmed accordingly. 18. In result, the above writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. 19. The order passed by the second respondent Tribunal in CMA (CS) No.134 of 1989 dated 33. 1992 thereby confirming the Order of the third respondent in his Na.ka.No.2803 of 1986 dated 4. 1988 is upheld and confirmed. 20. Consequently, W.M.P.No.21420 of 1992 is also dismissed.