ORDER: The third respondent Co-operative Society was registered with an object to uplift the hill tribes of Analatti Village, Coimbatore District. In furtherance of the above object, the third respondent Society undertook the work of laying roads and purchase of milch cows out of the subsidiary amount granted under the “Rural Economic Uplift Organisation” and with the loan sanctioned to the members of the Society. 1.2. Alleging that the petitioner, who was working as Secretary and also Thiru Maruthan, who was working as President till 1984, had misappropriated the funds of the third respondent Society, the third respondent Society appointed an Enquiry Officer under Sec.65 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner and Thiru. Maruthan spent a sum of Rs.4,273 on 31.3.1984 for laying road without vouchers; caused a loss of Rs.29,496 by improper maintenance of accounts in the matter of sanctioning loan to 48 members for the purchase of milch cows; further caused a loss of Rs.24,333.87 in respect of putting up a cattle shed for the said milch cows and also caused a loss of Rs.33,012 alleged to have been spent in excess for cutting and removing the timber from the hill forest. 1.3. Based on the enquiry report, the second respondent initiated a surcharge proceedings under Sec.87(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the following charges and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and Thiru Maruthan to show cause as to why an order under Sec.87(1) of the Act directing them to contribute a sum of Rs.91,119.67 together with interest at 16% should not be passed against them. (i) On 31.3.1984, without any voucher respondents 1 and 2 had spent Rs.4,273 for laying roads and caused deficiency to the assets of the society. (ii) On 29.3.1984, a loan of Rs.38,000 was granted to the society for the purchase of milch animals and a subsidy of Rs.66,000 was also granted on 29.3.1984 for 43 members. Respondents 1 and 2 by wilful negligence and improper maintenance of accounts caused deficiency to the assets of the society to the extent of Rs.29,496. (ii) On 29.3.1984, a loan of Rs.38,000 was granted to the society for the purchase of milch animals and a subsidy of Rs.66,000 was also granted on 29.3.1984 for 43 members. Respondents 1 and 2 by wilful negligence and improper maintenance of accounts caused deficiency to the assets of the society to the extent of Rs.29,496. (iii) Contrary to the Act, Rules and bylaws of the Society and without obtaining proper permission of the authorities concerned, respondents 1 and 2 had spent Rs.24338.87 during 1987 for construction of a cow shed and caused deficiency to the assets of the society. (iv) Due to deliberate negligence of duty and fraudulent dealings, respondents 1 and 2 maintained improper accounts and un-authorised payments with ulterior motives and caused deficiency to the assets of the society to the extent of Rs.33,012 in the main business of the society i.e., sale of fire wood. 1.4. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation. 1.5 Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent, by is order dated 28.8.1989, held that charges 1 to 3 were proved, but fourth charge was not proved. On appeal, the said order dated 28.8.1989 was confirmed by the first respondent in his order dated 6.5.1994. Hence, the petitioner seeks for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in S.T.C.A. No.65 of 1990 and quash the order of first respondent in the above reference dated 6.5.1994. 2.1. Mr.S.S. Sundar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer at all. In this regard, he replies upon the decision in K.A. Arangarasu and others v. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and another,2001 Writ L.R. 80. 2.2. That apart, Mr.S.S. Sundar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the very finding of respondents 1 and 2, that the vouchers for laying road are available for a sum of Rs.4,273, but were not properly prepared itself belies the charge that the petitioner had spent a sum of Rs.4,273 without vouchers. 2.3. 2.2. That apart, Mr.S.S. Sundar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the very finding of respondents 1 and 2, that the vouchers for laying road are available for a sum of Rs.4,273, but were not properly prepared itself belies the charge that the petitioner had spent a sum of Rs.4,273 without vouchers. 2.3. With regard to the second charge, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was in charge of the office from 18.12.1982 to 31.8.1984 and that the loan for purchase of milch cows was granted on 29.3.1984 and therefore, the petitioner was incharge only for the period of first six months from the date of sanction of the loan viz., 29.3.1984 till 31.8.1984 from when the Special Officer took charge of the society. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice that the milch cows were insured with the Insurance Company immediately after they were purchased, during the period of service of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the above explanations were not properly considered. 2.4. With regard to third charge, it is contended that the society put up the cattle shed only pursuant to the resolution passed by the society, as the Registrar himself had directed, while sanctioning loan for purchase of milch cows, to provide a common cattle shed. The above two vital facts were not considered by respondents 1 and 2 while passing the impugned orders. 3.1. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, contends that even though the petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer, he was permitted to peruse the same. 3.2. The learned Special Government Pleader is not disputing the fact that vouchers were available for a sum of Rs.4,273. 3.3 The learned Special Government Pleader is also not disputing the fact that the petitioner was incharge of the society only for the first six months from the date of sanction of the loan for the purchase of milch cows, during which period, the milch cows were purchased and insured by the society and that the Special Officer was appointed to look after the society from 1.9.1984. He admits that the cattle shed was put up by the society only pursuant to the resolution passed by the Society. 4. He admits that the cattle shed was put up by the society only pursuant to the resolution passed by the Society. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 5.1. I am obliged to refer the decision of the Court in K.A. Arangarasu and others v. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and another, 2001 Writ L.R. 80, wherein it is held that the employee of the Co-operative Society is entitled for a copy of the enquiry report on the basis of which, the surcharge proceedings were initiated. Admittedly, in the instant case, even though the petitioner was permitted to peruse the enquiry report, he was not furnished with a copy of the same to submit his effective explanation. 5.2. That apart, even on merits, I am satisfied that the petitioner had given a detailed explanation for all the three charges, namely, a sum of Rs.1,152 was spent for laying road and a sum of Rs.3121 was given to labourers, who were engaged for the purpose of removing huge quantity of fire wood from the place of cutting and vouchers were available for the same, but the same were not properly appreciated by the respondents. 5.3. Similarly, I do not see any convincing reason for rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner for the loss alleged to have been caused by the petitioner in connection with the loan given to the members of the society for the purchase of milch cows, because the milch cows were purchased and insured with the Insurance Company during the period of service of the petitioner viz., from 29.3.1984 to 31.8.1984. If that be so, I am unable to fix the loss of Rs.29,496 on the petitioner. 5.4. As already observed, the cattle shed was put up by the petitioner and others only pursuant to the resolution passed by the society, and as per the direction of the Registrar to provide common cattle shed, and therefore, I do not find any justification to hold that the petitioner had caused a loss of Rs.24,338.87 for putting up the cattle shed. 5.5. 5.5. In fine, all these charges fail and the impugned surcharge proceedings of the second respondent dated 28.8.1989 are, therefore, vitiated for non-application of mind by the respondents on the explanation offered by the petitioner as well as for the failure to furnishes a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, as held in K.A. Arangarasu and others v. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and another, 2001 Writ L.R. 80. 5.6. Hence, the impugned order of the first respondent dated 6.5.1994 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.21511 of 1994 is closed.