Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order Ref.No.1/2008-09 dated 24.02.2009, ordering reopening of the surcharge proceedings against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation Ltd., where he joined on 26.11.1974. The assets and liabilities of the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. were taken over by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation Ltd., with effect from 01.02.1981. 3. During his service career, the petitioner was promoted upto the level of Deputy Manager (Administration). The petitioner, as Deputy Manager (Administration), was posted at Coimbatore District Co-operative Milk Producers Union, on deputation, on 30.05.1995. The post was subsequently re-designated as Assistant General Manager (Administration) from 2005, and the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2009 on attaining age of superannuation. 4. While the petitioner was in service, an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, was ordered against him on 07.02.1996. The charge against the petitioner was regarding the irregularities in appointing the staff at the Coimbatore Union. 5. The case of the petitioner was, that even before his joining, the recruitment process had already started and the interviews were going on. The petitioner only continued the process, which was started earlier by his predecessor. In spite of this, the petitioner along with Committee members was proceeded against under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. 6. All the members were discharged from the financial liability, vide order dated 28.02.2005, as there was no financial loss to the society. 7. The Deputy Registrar, on receipt of enquiry report under Section 81 of the Act, proceeded with the next course of action regarding surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, on 09.02.1998, and issued final orders on 28.02.2005. The petitioner was discharged without imposing any liability, as no financial loss was caused to the society. 8. It is the submission of the petitioner that, out of 25 employees, recovery was ordered against ten employees. The employees, aggrieved by the order, filed appeals before the District Judge/Cooperative Tribunal. The learned Cooperative Tribunal, vide judgment dated 28.02.2008, ordered re-trial by quashing the recovery order passed in the surcharge proceedings vide orders dated 28.02.2005, by accepting the appeals. 9. It is the submission of the petitioner that, out of 25 employees, recovery was ordered against ten employees. The employees, aggrieved by the order, filed appeals before the District Judge/Cooperative Tribunal. The learned Cooperative Tribunal, vide judgment dated 28.02.2008, ordered re-trial by quashing the recovery order passed in the surcharge proceedings vide orders dated 28.02.2005, by accepting the appeals. 9. The case of the petitioner is, that after the retirement, the petitioner was served with the impugned order dated 24.02.2009 for re-trial, in view of the orders passed by the learned Cooperative Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the order discharging the petitioner had attained finality, as it was not the subject matter of challenge before the learned Cooperative Tribunal, therefore, it was not open to respondents to hold fresh proceedings against the petitioner. 11. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order has been passed by misreading the judgment of the learned Cooperative Tribunal in ordering the re-trial to mean that enquiry was to be held against all the persons, whereas the order of the learned Tribunal could be read only to deal with appellants before the learned Tribunal and not the persons, who were not parties before the learned Tribunal. 12. The writ petition is opposed by filing counter. The stand taken in the counter is, that in the final order dated 28.02.2005, out of 25 employees, recovery orders were passed against 9 employees asking them to pay a sum of Rs.22,48,890.94 (Rupees twenty two lakhs forty eight thousand eight hundred ninety and paise ninety four only) along with 18% penal interest in 5 items, whereas 16 of the employees were acquitted from the remaining 8 items. 13. Out of 9 employees, 8 filed appeals against the order dated 28.02.2005 before the learned District Judge, Coimbatore/Learned Special Tribunal for Co-operative cases. The appeals were allowed and the surcharge order dated 28.02.2005 was quashed, and the case was remanded back to Deputy Registrar (Dairying) Coimbatore. 14. It was in view of the order passed by the learned District Judge/Cooperative Tribunal, that respondent No.1 initiated surcharge proceedings after getting periodical extension from the District Judge. The summons, therefore, were sent to all the employees involved including petitioner. 15. 14. It was in view of the order passed by the learned District Judge/Cooperative Tribunal, that respondent No.1 initiated surcharge proceedings after getting periodical extension from the District Judge. The summons, therefore, were sent to all the employees involved including petitioner. 15. The stand in the counter is, that respondent No.1 is conducting re-trial of surcharge proceedings only in view of the order of the District Court/Cooperative Tribunal, in which both the charged and acquitted employees were parties, including the petitioner. Thus, the stand is that the action against the petitioner has been initiated under the directions of the learned District Court/Cooperative Tribunal. 16. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. Once the order discharging the petitioner was not the subject matter of challenge in the appeals filed by the persons against whom recovery orders were passed, it was not open to the respondents to re-open the closed matter. 17. The initiation of proceedings against the petitioner, therefore, is outcome of misreading of the judgment of the learned District Court/Cooperative Tribunal. The order of the Court binds the parties to the disputes. In this case, the discharge of petitioner was not under challenge, therefore, the learned District Judge/Cooperative Tribunal could only decide qua right of the appellants and not others. Any other interpretation cannot be accepted, as orders of Court cannot bind third parties. 18. In the garb of re-trial of the persons against whom the order of recovery was set aside, it was not open to the respondents to re-open the closed matter regarding the employees, who were exonerated of the charges in the enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and against whom no order under Section 87 of the Act was passed, and these orders had attained finality. 19. The impugned order, therefore, on the face of it, is not only without jurisdiction, but totally arbitrary being outcome of non-application of mind and on misinterpretation of the order passed by the learned District Judge/Cooperative Tribunal. 20. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, but with no order as to costs. Connected M.P. is closed.