ORDER 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the second respondent/Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Commissioner of Sugars, Chennai, in Na.Ka.No.30274/SA1/2001, dated 01.02.2003, by calling for the records connected thereto. 2. The petitioner joined the service of the respondent Sugar Mills on 18.08.1984 as a Junior Clerk E4. While he was discharging his duties, he was assigned with the work of scrutinising and verifying the loan applications submitted by the employees of the respondent Sugar Mills for the marriage expenses of their daughters. Subsequently, all of a sudden, he was issued with a suspension order dated 29.11.1997 suspending him from service with immediate effect for certain alleged irregularities. On receipt of the suspension order, he submitted his explanations dated 13.12.1997, rebutting all the allegations levelled against him and thereby requested for reinstatement of service. Subsequently, the respondent Sugar Mills also had ordered him to join duty on 21.01.1998, by revoking the suspension order dated 29.11.1997. On revocation of suspension, while he was discharging his duties, again, he was issued with a show cause notice dated 02.07.1999 seeking his explanations. The disciplinary authority, upon receiving the explanations from the petitioner, appointed the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer, in turn, after perusing the claim of both sides, found the petitioner guilty of all the charges and thereby submitted his report. The Disciplinary Authority, on receipt of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect, vide proceedings dated 23.10.2000. Subsequently, the same was forwarded to the Commissioner of Sugars, namely, the second respondent herein. The Commissioner of Sugars, after perusing all the materials available before him, by exercising his powers conferred under Section 153 (1) of the Cooperative Societies Act, enhanced the aforesaid punishment to that of removal from service with immediate effect, vide his proceedings dated 01.02.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order dated 01.02.2003 passed by the second respondent. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned order dated 01.02.2003 passed by the second respondent. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed three fold submissions: Firstly, it was pleaded that when 17 other employees were also initiated with the departmental proceedings for submitting false applications for obtaining marriage loans, the department finally, finding them guilty of all the charges levelled against them, imposed only minor punishment of censure against all the co-employees. Secondly, in the case of petitioner, instead of imposing the same punishment, imposed a major punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect 23.10.2000 and when the said order was also not challenged by the petitioner, the second respondent ought not to have exercised his suo motu power conferred under Section 153(1) of the Act for the purpose of enhancing the punishment, with huge delay of 10 months, since the suo moto power shall be exercised within 90 days only. Thirdly, when one another person Mr. R. Palani, who happened to be a Labour Welfare Officer of the first respondent Mill was imposed with punishment of censure and on further enhancing the punishment to one of removal from service, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4103 of 2003 before this Court challenging the enhancement of punishment. This Court directed the respondent to reinstate him in service without any backwages with other service benefits including continuity of service. When the said order was implemented by the first respondent Mill, showing discriminative treatment to the petitioner by enhancing the major punishment of stoppage of increment for six months, without cumulative effect, again intending to enhance to one of removal from service is absolutely untenable and unsustainable in the eye of law. When the Labour Welfare Officer Mr. R. Palani was reinstated in the service of the first respondent, the respondents cannot punish the petitioner twice for the same charges. On that basis, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 4. When the Labour Welfare Officer Mr. R. Palani was reinstated in the service of the first respondent, the respondents cannot punish the petitioner twice for the same charges. On that basis, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that when the petitioner was entrusted with a responsible duty to scrutinise all the loan applications, that were filed by the employees working in the Sugar Mills, he has to scrutinise the same with adequate care and caution to find out whether the loan applications were filed properly with sufficient reasons for grant of loan, but in the case of the petitioner, who was a forwarding officer, not only simply forwarded the applications, but also applied for loan for his adopted daughter's marriage. Subsequently, on complaints filed, in the enquiry, it was found that bogus applications were filed for receiving the loan. Therefore, the Sugar Mill, accepted the Report of the Enquiry Officer, holding him guilty and imposed the punishment of censure for 17 other applicants and in the case of the petitioner, stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect. Later on, the second respondent finding that the petitioner was not imposed with suitable punishment as he had wrongly recommended for grant of loan, which was later on found to be incorrect, exercising his suo motu power under Section 153(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 rightly issued the show cause notice to enhance the punishment, and after receipt of the explanation from the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner was imposed for the reason that he being a forwarding officer, wrongly recommended for grant of loan, which ultimately cause heavy loss to the respondent Sugar Mills and therefore, no leniency can be shown to the petitioner. On that basis, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The second respondent adopted the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the first respondent and submitted that the second respondent has the power under Section 153(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and after following the procedure, viz., issuing a show cause and obtaining explanation from the petitioner, rightly passed the impugned order and therefore, no interference is called for. 6. Heard both sides. 7. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The petitioner, who joined in the service of the first respondent Sugar Mill in the year 1984 as a Junior Clerk E4 on compassionate ground for the sale of land belonging to his family for setting up the factory, suffered a departmental proceedings. He was placed under suspension by order dated 29.11.1997. Resultantly, a surcharge amount of Rs.24,965.55 was recovered from him by order dated 15.02.1997. Subsequently, when he was working as E-4 Assistant, the nature of work assigned to him was to assist the Labour Welfare Officer. However, he was also given additional work and forwarding the loan applications for marriage allowances after examining the veracity of the applications both with reference to the eligibility of the applicant to seek loan as well as the quantum to be determined thereof. On finding some lapse on the part of the petitioner while forwarding 17 loan applications, he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months. After proper enquiry, the suspension order was revoked and he was reinstated into service. Subsequently, on a representation made by the petitioner dated 26.12.2000 to treat his suspension period viz., from 01.12.1997 to 20.01.1998 as duty period and to grant him the eligible pay, the respondents accepted his request and ordered to treat the suspension period as duty period and his salary for the said period was also paid. 8. Subsequently, the second respondent, by taking note of the punishment imposed against the petitioner, found that the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months for having caused loss to the first respondent mill was not commensurate with the charges proved against him, and thought it fit to enhance the said punishment. Thereupon, he issued a notice dated 22.02.2002 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within fifteen days of receipt of the copy of the notice. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 09.04.2002. On receipt of the said explanation, the second respondent imposed punishment of dismissal from service. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as E-4 Assistant. His nature of work was assisting the Labour Welfare Officer. When he was given additional work of forwarding of the applications for marriage allowances, the petitioner, after receiving the applications for marriage allowances from 18 other staff members, forwarded the same to the higher officer. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as E-4 Assistant. His nature of work was assisting the Labour Welfare Officer. When he was given additional work of forwarding of the applications for marriage allowances, the petitioner, after receiving the applications for marriage allowances from 18 other staff members, forwarded the same to the higher officer. The higher officer only granted permission for grant of loan to 18 other staff members and also to the petitioner. Further, when the Labour Welfare Officer Mr. R. Palani was also imposed with punishment of removal from service for the same offence, he challenged the same and after the said punishment was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.4103 of 2003, the second respondent has reinstated the said R. Palani without any backwages with other benefits including continuity of service. But, in the case of the petitioner, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, for which ultimately he was imposed with punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect. After imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment, if the second respondent feels that the punishment imposed against him was insufficient and the punishment should be enhanced, by exercising suo motu power under Section 153(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, the second respondent should have initiated suo motu proceedings for enhancement of the punishment within 90 days from the date of earlier order imposing the punishment. But, in the present case, the second respondent has issued the enhancement notice only on 22.02.2002, which ended in dismissal order on 01.02.2003. Therefore, there has been a huge delay in exercising the suo motu power, which is beyond the period of limitation. 10. Section 153(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, reads as under:- "153. But, in the present case, the second respondent has issued the enhancement notice only on 22.02.2002, which ended in dismissal order on 01.02.2003. Therefore, there has been a huge delay in exercising the suo motu power, which is beyond the period of limitation. 10. Section 153(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, reads as under:- "153. Revision :- (1) The Registrar may of his own motion or on application, call for and examine the record of any officer subordinate to him or of the Board or any officer of a registered Society or of the Competent authority constituted under Sub-section (3) of Section 75 and the Government may, of their own motion or on application, call for and examine the record of the Registrar, in respect of any proceedings under this Act or the Rules or the Bylaws not being a proceeding in respect of which an appeal to the Tribunal is provided by sub-section (1) of Section 152 to satisfy himself or themselves as to the regularity of such proceedings, or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision passed or order made therein; and, if in any case, it appears to the Registrar or the Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he or they may pass orders accordingly: Provided that every application to the Registrar or the Government for the exercise of the powers under this section shall be preferred within ninety days from the date on which the proceedings, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant." A mere reading of the Proviso clearly shows that every application to the Registrar or the Government for the exercise of the powers under the Section shall be preferred within ninety days from the date on which the proceedings, decision or order to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant. But, in the present case, the exercise of suo motu power is barred by a huge delay as it was not done within 90 days from the date of imposition of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. Secondly, the second respondent in similar circumstances has enhanced the punishment of censure awarded to Mr. R. Palani to that of removal from service. 11. Secondly, the second respondent in similar circumstances has enhanced the punishment of censure awarded to Mr. R. Palani to that of removal from service. On subsequent challenge made by the said Mr. R. Palani by filing W.P.No.4103 of 2003, this Court, by order dated 15.07.2004 directed the second respondent to reinstate him in service without any backwages with other service benefits including the continuity of service. The said order was implemented by the first respondent mill. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to for the same benefit in this case also. 12. Since this Court has reached a conclusion that the exercise of suo motu power is barred by time, by setting aside the impugned order, directs the respondent Sugar Mills to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service, but without the benefit of backwages as done in the case of Mr. R. Palani, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs.