Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 18.6.1999 made in C.M.A. - C.S.No.44 of 1997 on the file of the Co-operative Tribunal (Principal District Court), Tirunelveli. 2. As per the order dated 18.6.1999 of the Co-operative Tribunal, viz., the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cheranmahadevi made in S.C.No.1/96-97 dated 23.4.1997 was confirmed, as per which the revision petitioner as a Special Officer of the Radhapuram Taluk Producers Co-operative Marketing Society found liable for causing loss to the tune of Rs.97,835/- as found in the surcharge proceedings, since when the said amount was taken on 30.8.1995 by the cashier Gnaniah and typist Sudalaiyandi for depositing towards renewal of insurance they were waylaid by thieves and the amount was stolen and since the case could not be detected despite the complaint made to the Valliyoor Police Station and as such, as there was no insurance in force for the "Money-in-transit" the society could not recover the amount. 3. The revision petitioner was the Special officer in the Radhapuram Taluk Producers Co-operative Marketing Society from 7.11.1994 till his transfer on 17.8.1995. One L.Paranjothi was the accountant in the said society, who after suspension reinstated on 18.9.1993. The revision petitioner as a Special Officer and the said Paranjothi as accountant of the society were responsible for renewal of insurance in respect of the "Money–in–transit" which in fact in respect of the society was insured with United India Insurance Company, Tirunelveli during the year 1995. The insurance is to be renewed on 22.8.1995. It appears, reminder was sent on 4.8.1995 reminding the society for renewal of the insurance. However, Paranjothi who was the accountant of the society and the revision petitioner as the Special Officer did not take steps to renew the same till the revision petitioner was transferred on 17.8.1995, as such, the successor in office took steps for renewing the insurance. On 30.8.1995 when the cashier Gnaniah and typist Sudalaiyandi took the money of Rs.97,835/- for the purpose of renewing the insurance, they were waylaid by the thieves and the amount was stolen from them and the case could not be detected despite the fact a complaint was made to the Valliyoor Police Station. Surcharge proceedings were initiated against the revision petitioner and the accountant Paranjothi. 4. Surcharge proceedings were initiated against the revision petitioner and the accountant Paranjothi. 4. The revision petitioner took the stand that inasmuch as the insurance was in force till 22.8.1995 and since he was transferred on 17.8.1995, he was not responsible for the amount stolen when it was taken for the purpose of renewing the insurance by the cashier Gnaniah and the typist Sudalaiyandi on 30.8.1995. Further, it is his case that the accountant Paranjothi did not put up office note for renewing the insurance though reminder was sent by the United India Insurance Company on 4.8.1995. Therefore, according to the revision petitioner, he is not liable for the amount to which he was held responsible as per the surcharge proceedings. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that inasmuch as the very same officer, viz., the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies initiated action by causing notice for surcharge proceedings also passed the final order holding the revision petitioner and one PaRANJOTHI ACCOUNTANT OF THE SOCIETY ARE LIABLE TO PAY THE SAID AMOUNT for CAUSING LOSS TO THE SOCIETY, IN THAT Rs.97,835/- WAS TAKEN BY the cashier Gnaniah and the typist Sudalaiyandi on 30.8.1995 FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENEWING THE INSURANCE WHICH WAS STOLEN AND THEREFORE, THERE HAVE BEEN GROSS IRRELGULARITY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION in the case of P.Venkatachalam (deceased) and others – vs. - The Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Madras and others reported in I.L.R. (1996)1 Madras, in which a Division Bench of this Court has held:- "It is one of the cardinal principles of our jurisprudence that no person who is a complaint in the case shall be the adjudicator. Therefore, the entire proceeding has to be held as vitiated by reason of this grave and serious infirmity. A person who had prosecuted the petitioner cannot be any stretch of imagination be held to have approached the case dispassionately. Even for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that the second respondent had approached the case dispassionately the principles of natural justice require that such a person should not be an adjudicator of the cause in question. Justice should not only be done, but it must also seem to be done. Even for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that the second respondent had approached the case dispassionately the principles of natural justice require that such a person should not be an adjudicator of the cause in question. Justice should not only be done, but it must also seem to be done. The other decision relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is Arjun Chaubey – vs. - Union of India and others reported in A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court, 1356, in which a Division Bench consisting of five Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court has ruled:- " . . . the order of dismissal was illegal on the ground that the order was passed by the Superintendent after considering the explanation himself which violated the principles of natural justice. The main thrust of the charges against the employee related to his conduct qua the Superintendent. Therefore, it was not open to the Superintendent to sit in judgment over the explanation offered by the employee and decide that the explanation was untrue. No person could be a judge in his own cause and no witness could certify that his own testimony was true. Any one who had a personal stake in the enquiry must have kept himself aloof from the enquiry." Further the learned counsel for the revision petitioner also pointed out that in fact, the revision petitioner as a Special Officer passed an order directing the accountant Paranjothi for renewing the insurance for Money-in-transit as early as 14.7.1985. But, to renew the insurance in respect of the Money-in-transit since no office note was put up by the accountant Paranjothi that the insurance subject matter of this revision is to be renewed, he could not pass any order during his tenure as a Special Officer till 17.8.1995 and in any event inasmuch as the insurance was in force till 22.8.1995, he was not responsible in anyway for the amount of Rs.97,835/- sent through the cashier Gnaniah and the typist Sudalaiyandi on 30.8.1995 for the purpose of renewing the insurance and it appears they were waylaid and the amount was stolen and could not be recovered despite the fact a complaint was made to the Valliyoor Police Station. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent society argued that inasmuch as the revision petitioner was the Special Officer and did not take steps to renew the insurance in spite of the fact that a letter was sent as early as on 4.8.1995 by the insurance company that the insurance is to be renewed and the sum of Rs.97,835/- sent on 30.8.1995 through the cashier Gnaniah and the typist Sudalaiyandi was stolen by thieves, the revision petitioner as a Special Officer is also responsible for causing loss to the society in respect of the amount to that extent. 7. It appears the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies initiated surcharge proceeding against the revision petitioner and the accountant Paranjothi on 30.11.1996 that they caused loss to the society to the tune of Rs.97,835/-, in that the said amount which was taken up by the cashier Gnaniah and the typist Sudalaiyandi on 30.8.1995 for the purpose of renewing the insurance in respect of Money-in-transit, was stolen and that they did not take steps for renewing the insurance in time though the insurance is to expire on 22.8.1995 and despite the letter sent for that purpose as early as 4.8.1995. The very same officer after holding enquiry passed the final order on 23.4.1997 holding that the revision petitioner as well Paranjothi accountant of the society were responsible for causing loss of Rs.97,835/- to the society and as such, both are jointly liable to pay the said amount with 15% interest. Therefore, as rightly urged for the revision petitioner there have been gross irregularity, in that the very same officer, who initiated the surcharge proceedings against the revision petitioner and the accountant Gnaniah, has passed the final order, the principles of natural justice have been violated in doing so and serious infirmity has been caused to the revision petitioner. Therefore, the order of the surcharge proceedings passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and confirmed by the Co-operative Tribunal is liable to be set aside on that ground. 8. Even on facts, admittedly, the revision petitioner was a Special Officer of the society from 7.11.1994 till 17.8.1995. The insurance in respect of money-in-transit insured with United India Insurance, Tirunelveli was n force till 22.8.1995. 8. Even on facts, admittedly, the revision petitioner was a Special Officer of the society from 7.11.1994 till 17.8.1995. The insurance in respect of money-in-transit insured with United India Insurance, Tirunelveli was n force till 22.8.1995. Though a letter was sent by the Insurance company on 4.8.1995 to renew the same, there is nothing to show that necessary office note was put up before the Special Officer, viz., the revision petitioner that the insurance subject matter of this revision petition has to be renewed for further period of one year after the expiry of the insurance as on 22.8.1995. It is the definite case of the revision petitioner that he was relieved on 17.8.1995 and accordingly he also sent explanation on 27.1.1997. Further it is the case of the revision petitioner that he was suddenly transferred without giving any posting to him. Hence he went on medical leave and only thereafter he handed over the charge of the office and at that time he handed over the file relating to the insurance from the top shelf of the bureau of the accountant. The accountant Paranjothi was also suspended on 15.8.1995. Even assuming the revision petitioner as Special Officer and Paranjothi as accountant failed to take steps to renew the insurance for that they cannot be held liable in respect of the amount of Rs.97,835/- which was stolen when the amount was taken by the cashier Gnaniah and the typist Sudalaiyandi on 30.8.1995 for the purpose of renewing the insurance stating that they caused loss to the society. 9. In any event, the very same officer who initiated surcharge proceedings also passed final orders holding the revision petitioner is responsible for the loss of Rs.97,835/- which was sent through the cashier Gnaniah and the typist Sudalaiyandi on 30.8.1995 for renewing the insurance which was stolen by thieves. The said order so passed cannot be said to be proper. It is not known as to why the revision petitioner was transferred without giving any other post and when the revision petitioner exactly handed over charge to the successor on his return from leave. There have been gross irregularity and serious infirmity and as such, the principles of natural justice have been violated. Therefore, the order of Co-operative Tribunal is to be set aside. 10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There have been gross irregularity and serious infirmity and as such, the principles of natural justice have been violated. Therefore, the order of Co-operative Tribunal is to be set aside. 10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order of the Co-operative Tribunal made in C.M.A. - C.S.No.44 of 1997 confirming the surcharge proceedings of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies is set aside. Consequently, connected petitions in C.M.P.Nos.17161 and 17162 of 1999 are closed.