ORDER 1. The revision petitioner is the President in 134.Sakkammalpuram Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society. Another delinquent is the Secretary of the society. A joint award was passed against both of them. The Secretary died subsequently. Hence, the respondent has initiated proceedings only against the petitioner, leaving the legal representatives of the deceased Secretary. The action on the part of the respondent is being assailed by the respondent on three grounds. 2. Mr. M. Thirunavukarasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that inasmuch as the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner along with the notice sent under Section 87 of the Societies Act, the principles of natural justice have been violated which would vitiate the entire enquiry proceedings. Another ground is that there is no wilful negligence on the part of the President but the lapses are attributable to the other members of the society who are responsible for the transactions including the Secretary and hence, the President alone could not be proceeded with for his alleged wilful negligence. Yet another ground is that since the society has not impleaded the legal representatives of the deceased Secretary, initiating action against the President alone is not legal and it is settled law that such action is not sustainable. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted in accordance with the procedure, that since the wilful negligence was on the part of the President, he is liable for surcharge proceedings and that though there may be lapse on the part of the Society to implead the legal representatives of the Secretary, the action against the President is sustainable. 4. As far as the first ground is concerned, notice under Section 87 of the Societies Act was issued to the petitioner on 17.4.2007 and the same was served upon him on 20.4.2007. Even though it is mentioned therein that the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer under Section 81 of the Cooperative Societies Act has been enclosed, in fact, it was not so. It is evident from the fact that the proceeding viz., the enquiry report prepared by the Enquiry Officer is dated 29.7.2006. Both the notices under Sections 87 and 81 and the report under Section 87 of the Act have been produced. It is evident from the fact that the proceeding viz., the enquiry report prepared by the Enquiry Officer is dated 29.7.2006. Both the notices under Sections 87 and 81 and the report under Section 87 of the Act have been produced. When the report under Section 87 of the Act was not served upon the petitioner, the society sent notice under Section 87 of the Act to the petitioner on 29.7.2006 but without enclosing the copy of the enquiry report under Section 81 of the Act. While they sent the notices under Section 87 , the report under Section 81 of the Act should also accompany. But only on 17.4.2007 the enquiry report under Section 81 of the Act was sent to the petitioner along the covering letter which was served upon the petitioner on 20.4.2007. It shows that long after the issue of the notice under Section 87, the report under Section 81 was served upon the petitioner. Since, the petitioner was not afforded with ample opportunities at the time of receipt of notice under Section 87 it has to be observed that the principles of natural justice have been violated which would vitiate the entire proceedings. 5. The next limb of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that wilful negligence is not attributable to the petitioner, that it is the known fact that the President alone could not have the knowledge in any transaction and there is no material to show that merely because of the wilful negligence on the part of the petitioner, the society incurred the loss and that in this context, the surcharge proceedings have to be turned down. The contention has considerable force. 6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon a decision of this Court in Subbammal alias Rajammal and Others v. President, The Tenkasi Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Tenkasi (1976) 2 MLJ 460 , in which the learned Judge has dealt with the point in detail. The operative portion of the judgment goes thus: “Even if normal care had been taken by them before signing the accounts that would not have brought to light the various acts of misappropriation made by the clerk, for each entry in the account book was supported by a voucher even though forged and false. The operative portion of the judgment goes thus: “Even if normal care had been taken by them before signing the accounts that would not have brought to light the various acts of misappropriation made by the clerk, for each entry in the account book was supported by a voucher even though forged and false. It was not in dispute in this case that there was a secretary functioning in the bank and it was his duty to supervise the work of the clerk and it was a case of negligence, if at all, on the pat of the secretary to properly supervise the work of the clerk. On the facts of this case, the failure to check the accounts or to detect the misappropriations made by the clerk could not be said to be due to wilful negligence of the ex-President and ex-Vice-President. No wilful negligence had been established on their part and they could not be made liable.” 7. The facts of the present case are also akin to the facts available in the above said case. There was a Secretary in the society and his duty is to supervise the work of the subordinates and if there were any negligence, it can be only on the part of those subordinates and the Secretary supervising the affairs. The President alone could not be fastened with any liability or any lapse allegedly committed by Secretary. In this context, it has to be held that since no significant wilful negligence has been inferred on the part of the petitioner, he cannot be held liable for the loss incurred by the society. 8. The next leaf of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the absence of the legal heirs of the Secretary who has been found jointly liable by the Enquiry Officer, the initiation of proceedings by the Society will not stand. Even though the Secretary was also held jointly liable along with this petitioner by the Enquiry Officer, after his death, the society has failed to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased Secretary so as to make its claim a complete and perfect one. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would garner support from a Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Babu Sukhram Singh v. Ram Dular Singh and Others. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would garner support from a Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Babu Sukhram Singh v. Ram Dular Singh and Others. AIR 1973 SC 204 (V 60 C 32) wherein Their Lordships have observed as follows: “2. The trial Court dismissed the suit in its entirety. The first appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in part against all the defendants. On a further appeal being taken to the High Court allowed the appeal of the defendatns and dismissed the suit. As against the judgment of the High Court, the plaintiff-appellant brought this appeal. During the pendency of this appeal defendants Nos. 12, 15, 22 and 37 died. Their legal representatives were not brought on record within the time prescribed. Thereafter, the plaintiff applied to this Court for setting aside the abatement and impleading the legal representatives of the deceased respondents. But that application was dismissed. 3. Now the question is whether the appeal has abated or not. As seen earlier in the plaint, a joint claim is made against all the defendants. The first appellate Court, as mentioned earlier, decreed the suit in part against all the defendatns. The High Court has dismissed the suit against all the defendants. In this Court relief asked for was against all the defendants. No separate claim was made against any of the defendants. Under these circumstances, quite clearly the appeal has abated as a whole under Order 22, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.” 9. The above said decision was followed by this Court by P. Sathasivam, J. (as His Lordship then was) in an unreported judgment in A.S. Nos. 829 to 832 of 1983 dated 11.11.1997. 10. In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has to be necessarily held that since the legal representatives of the Secretary who has been jointly held are not brought on record initiation of action against the President alone is not legally permissible and hence, the surcharge proceedings will not stand against the petitioner alone. 11. In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has to be necessarily held that since the legal representatives of the Secretary who has been jointly held are not brought on record initiation of action against the President alone is not legally permissible and hence, the surcharge proceedings will not stand against the petitioner alone. 11. In view of the above said observations, in the light of the illuminating judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the view that on any ground, the respondent society cannot claim and hold the petitioner alone responsible for the loss and hence, the order and decree passed in C.M.A. (C.S) No. 31 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, have to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. 12. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. Revision allowed.