Judgment :- The petitioner is an employee of the Cooperative Society. An enquiry was conducted in respect of certain misconduct committed by the petitioner. After the enquiry, notice was issued to the petitioner along with the copy of the enquiry report dated 10. 2003. Instead of granting his explanation, the petitioner moved this Court by way of Writ Petition being W.P.No.1661 of 2004. This Court by a final order dated 2. 2004 rejected the petitioners request to entertain the Writ Petition at the stage of show cause notice. 2. In para 6 of the order in the above Writ Petition, this Court observed as follows: "6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, assuming the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned show cause notice dated 10. 2003, suffice it to permit the petitioner to submit his explanation to the impugned show cause notice dated 10. 2003 before the 2nd respondent. On receipt of such explanation, the 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate orders considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he is at liberty to move the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, by way of revision under section 153 of the Cooperative Societies Act, for appropriate relief and also move the appropriate authority for interim relief, if he is so advised, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of such revision, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies shall pass appropriate orders on the same, on merits, expeditiously." 3. The petitioner, instead of giving his explanation as directed by this Court filed a Revision application under section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act against the notice calling for further explanation on the enquiry report. 4. The Revisional authority by the impugned order dated 14. 2004 held that such an order is not revisable and the petitioner ought to have filed his explanation as directed by this Court. It is against this refusal to entertain the revision at the stage of a notice calling for further explanation, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition. 5. The Writ Petition was admitted on 24. 2004. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court by an order dated 24. 2004 granted an interim stay of the impugned order, refusing to hear the petitioners revision. 6. 5. The Writ Petition was admitted on 24. 2004. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court by an order dated 24. 2004 granted an interim stay of the impugned order, refusing to hear the petitioners revision. 6. Mr.G. Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that against any order or proceedings issued by the competent authority, a challenge can be made under section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioner wanted to contend that the Registrar has power either on his own motion or an application to call for and examine the record of any officer subordinate to him, which includes an officer of a Registered Society and therefore the impugned order is erroneous. This Court is unable to agree with the said submission. 7. The exercise of calling for explanation on the enquiry report in case where the enquiry officer is different from that of the disciplinary authority is the judicially created remedy to an employee. The Supreme Court while deciding the case relating to Union of India vs. Mohamed Ramzans case reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588 held that such an exercise is part of principles of natural justice. 8. At that stage, a charge sheeted employee can convince the disciplinary authority about the perversity of the finding or the improper procedure adopted by the enquiry officer. Therefore, when such a notice is issued, the disciplinary authority merely forwards the enquiry report without giving any opinion. If any such opinion is expressed at that stage either provisionally or otherwise, it may be contrary to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the notice calling for explanation on the enquiry report is not an order, which can be challenged by way of a Revision under section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. It is only when the disciplinary authority takes up a particular stand either accepting or disagreeing with the enquiry report, the question of decision by such authority will arise. Under the circumstances, the challenge to the impugned notice by the 1st respondent is misconceived and there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the 1st respondent, revisional authority. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. 9. Under the circumstances, the challenge to the impugned notice by the 1st respondent is misconceived and there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the 1st respondent, revisional authority. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. 9. Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner now states that since the time granted by this court earlier has already expired, the petitioner may be given some more time to submit explanation. The petitioner is given 15 more days time to submit explanation to the notice issued by the 1st respondent Society. On receipt of such explanation, the 1st respondent shall pas appropriate orders in accordance with law.