Judgment : 1. The petitioner was a Clerk in the second respondent Cooperative Bank. He was also given additional charge as Secretary. While so, an order dated 23.1.2007 was passed relieving him from the additional responsibility as Secretary. He was relieved by bringing another person from a different Society. 2. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6712 of 2007 against the aforesaid order dated 23.1.2007. This Court granted stay of the aforesaid order on 26.2.2007. Ultimately, Writ Petition No.6712 of 2007 was allowed on 13.4.2007 on the ground that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to induct an employee from another Cooperative Society. The matter was remanded back to appoint a Secretary in accordance with law. 3. While so, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 14.3.2007 contemplating disciplinary action. 4. He was issued with a charge memo dated 9.4.2007 making five charges. I am not inclined to go into the details of the charges in view of the order that is going to be passed hereunder. 5. The petitioner gave explanation denying the charges. Thereafter, an enquiry was held by a retired Cooperative Sub Registrar on 5.10.2007. Based on the enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 14.3.2008. The petitioner filed revision petition No.19/08/A2 under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act to the first respondent against the aforesaid dismissal. After hearing both sides, the first respondent revisional authority rejected the revision petition by an order dated 24.9.2008. 6. The petitioner filed a Review Petition before the first respondent under Section 154 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The review petition was dismissed by an order dated 10.9.2009. 7. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the aforesaid orders dated 24.9.2008 and 10.9.2009, confirming the dismissal order dated 14.3.2008, dismissing the petitioner from service. 8. Apart from raising various grounds, the petitioner has raised the grounds that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, no documents were marked and he was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witness. 9. The respondents have filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. 10. Heard both sides. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the enquiry proceedings that took place on 5.10.2007. 9. The respondents have filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations. 10. Heard both sides. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the enquiry proceedings that took place on 5.10.2007. He submitted that on 5.10.2007, at the very commencement of the enquiry, the petitioner was asked to make a statement in the enquiry. Thereafter, a statement was recorded from the Secretary of the Society. Thereafter, the enquiry was closed. According to him, examining the delinquent before examining the witness of the society (management or department) is violative of principles of natural justice. Since the burden is on the management or Department to prove the allegations, the Department shall first examine their witness and thereafter the turn of the delinquent would come for rebuttal evidence. 12. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witness. After simply recording the statement of the Secretary, the enquiry was closed. It is also submitted that no documents were marked in the enquiry. He has submitted that minimum ingredients of valid enquiry are not present in this case. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal and others vs. Kharak Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 236 ., and more particularly paragraph 15 (iii) and it is extracted hereunder: "(iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him." 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Society has vehemently contended that the petitioner was given opportunity and he could not complain at this point of time that he was not given opportunity. 15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and I have perused the enquiry proceedings dated 5.10.2007. 16. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the statement of the petitioner was recorded at the very commencement of the enquiry proceedings on 5.10.2007 itself. The statement of the petitioner runs to first four pages. Thereafter, the statement of the Secretary of the Society was recorded and that runs to 3 pages. 16. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the statement of the petitioner was recorded at the very commencement of the enquiry proceedings on 5.10.2007 itself. The statement of the petitioner runs to first four pages. Thereafter, the statement of the Secretary of the Society was recorded and that runs to 3 pages. After recording the statement of the Secretary of the Society, the enquiry was closed. This procedure adopted by the enquiry officer is questioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no documents were marked in the enquiry, particularly, some of the charges have to be established by marking the relevant documents. Further more, the petitioner was not also given opportunity to cross-examine the witness and the enquiry was completed on the same day on 5.10.2007 in the aforesaid fashion. 18. The Apex Court in the decision cited supra has laid down the guidelines about the minimum ingredients of a valid enquiry. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: "15. From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge: (i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject-matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the enquiry officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the enquiry officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. (iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. (iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. (iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any." It is made clear in paragraph 15(iii) of the above judgment that the Department shall examine its witness first before giving opportunity to the delinquent to let in evidence. It is well established principle of law, whether in departmental enquiry or civil proceedings or criminal proceedings, that the person who makes allegations shall prove the same after examining the witness first. The same is not followed in the present case. 19. Further, the petitioner has produced another judgment of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab Natinal Bank and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 for proposition that mere production of documents is not sufficient and the same shall be proved by marking those documents and the petitioner shall be given opportunity to cross-examine thereon. Paragraph 14 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder: "14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the IR which could not have been treated as evidence." 20. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the IR which could not have been treated as evidence." 20. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation to quash the impugned orders dated 14.3.2008 of the second respondent and 24.9.2008 and 10.9.2009 of the first respondent and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent Society to hold a fresh enquiry by giving opportunity as stipulated in the judgment of the Apex Court in (2008 ) 8 SCC 236(cited supra). The 2nd respondent is directed to pay wages to the petitioner from the date of dismissal till he is reinstated in service.21. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent states that a period of four weeks can be fixed for completing the enquiry. Before commencement of the enquiry, the petitioner shall be paid wages for the period of non-employment. The 2nd respondent is directed to complete the enquiry within a period four months after paying the wages to the petitioner as stated above. The petitioner is directed co-operate with the enquiry. If the petitioner has not cooperated in the enquiry, it is for the 2nd respondent society to proceed further ex parte. It is left to the discretion of the 2nd respondent either to place the petitioner under suspension or to retain him in service during the enquiry period. In the event of suspension, the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance. 22. The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.