Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was working as a clerk in the Ammapet Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank. Aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent Co-operative Tribunal in C.M.A.No.17 of 1996 dated 18.08.1998, confirming the order of the surcharge proceedings dated 110. 1995 and 18.08.1998, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Surcharge proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for having created a loss of Rs.445/- to the Society and the said loss was caused along with M/s P. Murugesan, N. Stalin Babu, T. Jeyabalan and S. Sukumaran. All the employees were jointly and severally made liable for the said amount and the petitioners share in the said transaction came to Rs.181.34p. As against the surcharge order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Co-operative Tribunal under Section 152 of the Co-operative Societies Act. It is not clear whether other persons involved have filed any appeal. In any event, the contention raised by the petitioner is that he was only writing the cash book and he was not responsible, if any fake vouchers are produced. In that view of the matter, he cannot be held responsible for the same. The Tribunal found that the certificate produced was being made from the Co-operative printing press with reference to purchase of stationery and in the original receipt there has been correction carried out and while entering into the day book, the entry was made by the petitioner without verifying the genuineness of such a claim. The Tribunal also found from the records that the signature and the entries were made by the petitioner, whereas, there has been no proof that the said payments have been made to the said Co-operative press. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal held that the petitioner being a senior clerk and along with other members were jointly and severally responsible for making such entries. Hence, the petitioner was made to pay Rs.181.35p together with interest at the rate of 15%. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/workman submits that excepting for registration, there is no direct involvement of the petitioner and therefore, the surcharge proceedings confirmed by the Tribunal was erroneous. In the present case, the petitioner has not made the Co-operative Society as a party to the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/workman submits that excepting for registration, there is no direct involvement of the petitioner and therefore, the surcharge proceedings confirmed by the Tribunal was erroneous. In the present case, the petitioner has not made the Co-operative Society as a party to the writ petition. In fact, without the Society being made a party, the writ petition itself is not maintainable and on that score, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. In any event, a detailed counter dated 08.09.1999 has been filed by the first respondent. In that it is stated that in paragraph Nos.6 and 7 as follows: "6. Regarding Ground (E) of the affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner has written the accounts and signed in the Cash Book based on the forgery Cash bill, eventhough he knew the fact that the cash bill was a forgery one and the Bill was altered by P. Murugesan and S. Stalin Babu. Thus the petitioner has committed the offence and caused deficiency to a tune of Rs.181.34 on his part. Therefore, the learned District Judge, Thanjavur has confirmed the orders passed by this first respondent. 7. Regarding Ground (F) of the affidavit, it is submitted that eventhough the petitioner knew the fact very well that stationery articles were not purchased from the Thanjavur Co-op. Printing Press he has written up the accounts with the forgery Cash bill. Therefore the petitioner is liable for having misappropriated to a tune of Rs.181-34." 4. It is also stated that a criminal case has also been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.48 of 1996 under Sections 409 and 477(A) IPC in the Ammapettai Police Station and the investigation was said to be under progress at the time of filing of the counter affidavit, viz., September 1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to inform this Court about the stage of the criminal investigation. In any event, considering the amount is very meagre and that the two authorities are found against the petitioner, this is not a fit case where this Court can interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. This may be an attempt of the petitioner to set up a defence in the criminal case and that may be the reason to have filed the writ petition. In any event, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. This may be an attempt of the petitioner to set up a defence in the criminal case and that may be the reason to have filed the writ petition. In any event, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.