Judgment :- Heard, Mr.S.Venkataraman the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and, Mr.S.Gopinathan the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondents for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court, dated 111. 2003, made in W.P.No.30884 of 2003. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that he had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.30884 of 2003, seeking for a direction to the first respondent to pay the subsistence allowance as per law, with effect from the date of suspension and to continue such payment till the disposal of the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. It has been further stated that this Court had disposed of the writ petition, on 111. 2003, with a direction to the first respondent to pay the subsistence allowance from the month of September, 2002, till the order of suspension was revoked. This Court, while passing the said order, had directed the first respondent to pay the subsistence allowance within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of the order. It has been stated that in spite of the first respondent having knowledge of the order, he has not complied with the same, till the date of the filing of the contempt petition. 3.1 It has also been stated that the petitioner was working as the Secretary of the respondents society. He was placed under suspension, on 12.06.2002, in public interest and in the interest of the society. The first respondent had issued a charge memo, dated 23.08.2002, alleging financial and clerical irregularities. From the date of suspension, no subsistence allowance had been paid to the petitioner, in spite of several representations being sent to the first respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to move this Court by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.30884 of 2003. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent stating that the petitioner has been suspended from service, on 12.06.2002, on the charge of misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs.9.91 lakhs, while the petitioner was functioning as the Secretary of the Bangaram Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank Ltd., from the years 1996-2001. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent stating that the petitioner has been suspended from service, on 12.06.2002, on the charge of misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs.9.91 lakhs, while the petitioner was functioning as the Secretary of the Bangaram Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank Ltd., from the years 1996-2001. The petitioner had been paid the subsistence allowance of a sum of Rs.14,204/-for the months of June, 2002 to August, 2002. The said amount was paid to the petitioner, on 29.03.2003. Since the said bank had incurred heavy losses, the petitioner could not pay the subsistence allowance from the month of September, 2002. Therefore, the bank had filed a review application before this Court in Review Application No.5 of 2004. The said review application had been dismissed by this Court, on 20.12.2004. It has also been stated that steps had been taken under Section 137 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, for the winding up of the bank based on the inspection report received under Section 82 of the said Act. The petitioner had wilfully delayed the completion of the enquiry proceedings as he had not participated in the enquiry proceedings, in spite of repeated reminders and summons. Since the petitioner had taken away the account books of the society, a First Information Report in FIR No.107 had been lodged under Section 406 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code. 1. It has also been stated that an enquiry had been ordered, under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, on 19.08.2002 and the enquiry report had been received, on 22.05.2003. Based on the Enquiry Officers findings, the Circle Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Thirukovilur, had preferred a complaint before the Central Crime Investigation Wing, Villupuram, on 17.09.2003. The petitioner had been arrested and released on bail. Thereafter, the petitioner had challenged the First Information Report in W.P.No.31609 of 2003. Due to the maladministration of the petitioner, the Bangaram Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank Ltd., had incurred a net loss of Rs.90.22 lakhs. The bank has been unable to pay the fixed deposits and the recurring deposits of Rs.30 lakhs to its members and the public. The staff strength had also been reduced due to the severe financial crisis. Due to the maladministration of the petitioner, the Bangaram Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank Ltd., had incurred a net loss of Rs.90.22 lakhs. The bank has been unable to pay the fixed deposits and the recurring deposits of Rs.30 lakhs to its members and the public. The staff strength had also been reduced due to the severe financial crisis. Further, the bank has not been in a position to run the four fair price shops under its control due to financial constraints. Hence, the non-compliance of the order, passed by this Court, on 111. 2003, is neither willful nor wanton and it is only due to bonafide reasons. 5. At the stage of hearing of the contempt petition, a letter, dated 16.04.2008, written by the Special Officer of the Bangaram Primary Agricultural Co-op. Bank Ltd., has been placed before this Court stating that the petitioner could be paid 50% of the basic pay, amounting to Rs.1,14,584, in 48 equated monthly installments. It was also submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the first installment would be paid to the petitioner from the month of June, 2008. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the submission made on behalf of the bank may be recorded and the contempt petition may be closed. However, he had submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to agitate the issue regarding the quantum of the subsistence allowance due to the petitioner. 7. Based on the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the respondents and in view of the records placed before this Court, the contempt petition is closed, as it is found that there is no wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 111. 2003, by the respondents as alleged by the petitioner. However, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedies, with regard to the quantum of the subsistence allowance due to him, before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law. With the above observations, the contempt petition stands closed. No costs.