Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant through employment exchange and joined service in the year 1983. 2. Thiru Ashok Husain was advanced loan to the tune of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) by the The Salem District Employees Co-operative Society and the petitioner stood surety for him. Thiru Ashok Husain holding the post of Assistant, has 30 years service to his credit. He absented from office for a period of one year citing family circumstances. The Special Officer of the Society in exercise of statutory power requested the respondents to recover the amount by enforcing security. 3. The submission of the petitioner is that Special Officer was bound to proceed against Thiru Ashok Husain first and thereafter proceedings could be taken against him after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also challenged the order of recovery against the petitioner, on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice, as no notice was issued to the petitioner before ordering recovery, therefore, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court wherein it was laid down that an order of recovery cannot be passed without following principle of natural justice and on proof of allegation that the employee had misrepresented or suppressed to receive excess scale of pay. The reliance of the petitioner on this judgment is misplaced, as it is not a case of recovery of excess amount wrongly paid to an employee. 6. The admitted position in this case is that the petitioner stood surety for his friend Thiru Ashok Husain who was the principle debtor to Salem District Employees Cooperative Society. 7. It is also not disputed that he absented from duty for more than one year. It is settled law that the liability of surety is co-extensive, as that of principle debtor. 8. The order of recovery has been passed against the petitioner by way of execution or statutory order by the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The impugned order therefore, is only an execution order. 9. The petitioner hasnot challenged the basic order passed against the petitioner for recovery. 8. The order of recovery has been passed against the petitioner by way of execution or statutory order by the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The impugned order therefore, is only an execution order. 9. The petitioner hasnot challenged the basic order passed against the petitioner for recovery. No notice is required to pass an execution order to enforce quasi judicial order passed in exercise of statutory power vested with the authority. 10. The petitioner has a remedy to recover the amount from the principal debtor, but he cannot challenge only execution order without challenging the basic order. No merit, dismissed. No costs.