JUDGMENT 1. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order of the 1st respondent, namely the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies cum Chairman of the Common Cadre Service Authority for the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks for Dharmapuri Region dated 16.3.2012. By the aforesaid order, the retired Joint Registrar by name Natarajan was appointed to conduct domestic enquiry in relation to the charges framed against the petitioner. 2. When the matter came up on 27.4.2012, Mr. L.P. Shanmuga Sundaram, Additional Government Pleader was directed to take notice and pending further orders, Status quo as on 27.4.2012 was directed to be maintained. 3. On notice from this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent dated 18.1.2013 and counter affidavit also has been filed by the 2nd respondent Cooperative Society dated 28.10.2012. 4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner, who was working as a Secretary of the 2nd respondent society was dismissed by order dated 28.2.2009. As against the dismissal order, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act on 20.9.2010. But the said Revision was not entertained as it was not filed within 90 days as prescribed under the Act. 5. However, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No.685 of 2011 challenging the order refusing to entertain his revision application. This Court by order dated 21.3.2011 set aside the order and directed the revisional authority to hear the revision on merits and pass orders within a period of 6 months. 6. It is pursuant to the said direction the Additional Registrar (Sales and Development) Chennai by his order dated 14.12.2011 allowed the revision in part and set aside the order of dismissal. Further, in this order he found that the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner was bias and one sided and in favour of the management and therefore he held that the charges must be enquired after following the necessary procedure, the enquiry must be conducted afresh and appropriate orders should be passed. Pending further enquiry, it was directed that the status quo as on 28.7.2009 could be maintained. 7. Pending further enquiry, it was directed that the status quo as on 28.7.2009 could be maintained. 7. The Secretaries of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank were initially brought under the common cadre service by the State Government and the Service Regulations in respect of such common cadre was set out by G.O.Ms.No.55, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 24.3.2000. During the pendency of the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner, the post of Secretary of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank was removed from the purview of the common cadre by G.O.MS.No.122, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.7.2008. In the very same order, in paragraph 8, it is stated as follows: "8. In respect of cases which are pending till the date of issue of the order, the cadre authority shall continue to deal with such, cases till its finalization." 8. Therefore, when the common cadre authority set aside the domestic enquiry and remanded the matter for conducting fresh enquiry, it has to be done only by the common cadre authority and not by the Special Officer. 9. Subsequent to the order of remand made by the Joint Registrar, the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 12.1.2012 after referring to the order of remand directed the Special Officer to conduct an enquiry by appointing an advocate as Enquiry Officer and to complete the enquiry process and furnish the enquiry report and thereafter forward the same to the common cadre authority. It was also directed that since status quo as on 28.7.2009 was directed to be maintained, the society should pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period from 4.7.2005 to 28.7.2009 and subsequently for the period from 29.7.2009 to 28.12.2011. 10. Basing upon the said direction, the 2nd respondent society appointed one N.Anandan, Advocate, as enquiry officer for conducting enquiry and to complete the report and forward the same by 30 days. The enquiry officer completed the enquiry and forwarded a report dated 13.3.2012 holding that the 2nd charge was proved, whereas the 1st charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 11. It is the stand of the petitioner that notwithstanding the enquiry report was forwarded by the Special Officer, the 1st respondent common cadre authority by order dated 16.3.2012 (impugned in the Writ Petition) has once again appointed another enquiry officer and therefore the said order was illegal. 11. It is the stand of the petitioner that notwithstanding the enquiry report was forwarded by the Special Officer, the 1st respondent common cadre authority by order dated 16.3.2012 (impugned in the Writ Petition) has once again appointed another enquiry officer and therefore the said order was illegal. Inasmuch as the enquiry was directed to be conducted by delegating power to the Special Officer, who in turn appointed an advocate to conduct the enquiry and that Officer having sent the report, which was forwarded to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent is bound to consider only that report and cannot seek for fresh enquiry, which would amount to fill up the lacunae found in the enquiry if any. 12. Strong reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kanailal Bera vs. Union of India reported in 2007 (11) SCC 517 . In the said judgment, the Supreme Court also referred to the previous judgment in K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise reported in (1971) 2 SCC 102 . These two judgments came to be referred to and followed by this Court in A.Selvaraj vs. the Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Kuralagam, Chennai reported in (2011) 7 MLJ 1181 . In that judgment, this Court in paragraph No.7 referred to K.R. Deb's case, which is as follows: "7. In fact, in this context, the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Kanailal Bera, supra, assumes importance. In that case, the Supreme Court referred to the previous ruling in K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise reported in (1971) 2 SCC 102 and extracted the said judgment in paragraph 7, which is as follows: "7. In K.R. Deb v. CCE (1971) 2 SCC 102 this Court while considering the provisions contained in Rule 15(1) of the Central Civil Services (classification, control and appeal) Rules, 1957 held as under: (SCC p105, paras 12-13) 12. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the disciplinary authority may ask the inquiry officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the inquiring officer or officers does not appeal to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9." 13. Therefore, it was contended that there is no scope for conducting a fresh enquiry when already an enquiry has been conducted. In response to the same, the 1st respondent in his counter affidavit has stated that by mistake he has asked the Special Officer to appoint enquiry officer. By virtue of paragraph 8 of G.O.MS.No.122, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.7.2008, the enquiry will have to be continuously held under the aegis of the common cadre authority and there is no scope for delegating the power to any such authority for conducting enquiry, for appointing an enquiry officer and getting a report and forwarding to the authority for passing necessary orders. Such a scheme is not contemplated in terms of the common cadre authority. Inasmuch as there is no power of delegation, the order dated 12.1.2012 should be held to be non-est under law. It is only after realizing the mistake, he has passed the impugned order dated 16.3.2012. 14. The second respondent Special Officer in his counter affidavit supported the said stand stating that since the existing domestic enquiry against the Secretaries of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank, who were originally covered by the common cadre service, is continued to be maintained by the same authority and there is no role to be played by the Special officer either in the appointment of the enquiry officer or forwarding the report to the competent authority. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the 1st respondent cannot go back on the earlier stand and ordering of the another enquiry officer in the teeth of enquiry report given by the enquiry officer appointed by the special officer, is not valid. 16. However, this Court is unable to countenance the said prayer. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the 1st respondent cannot go back on the earlier stand and ordering of the another enquiry officer in the teeth of enquiry report given by the enquiry officer appointed by the special officer, is not valid. 16. However, this Court is unable to countenance the said prayer. It is an admitted case that the 1st respondent is the common cadre authority and he alone has got powers either to order himself or delegate the power of conducting enquiry to another authority, but there is no scope for delegating his power to the Special Officer in case of pendency of the cases at the time of issuance of the G.O, abolishing the common cadre authority. He cannot delegate his powers for getting a report from the special officer for being considered by the common cadre authority. 17. In the instant case, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kanailal Bera vs. Union of India reported in 2007 (11) SCC 517 and K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise reported in (1971) 2 SCC 102 , does not arise for consideration. In those cases, the Supreme Court dealt with the questions as to whether the competent authority after getting a report from the enquiry officer can order for a fresh enquiry or that they had to come to their own conclusion either agreeing or disagreeing with the enquiry report received. 18. But, in the present case, it is not the competent authority who appointed the Enquiry Officer. On the other hand the enquiry officer's report was ordered to be obtained by the Special Officer contrary to the statutory requltion governing the field. Therefore, there is no illegality in the 1st respondent correcting the mistake made by him vide order dated 12.1.2012 and asking for a fresh enquiry to be conducted on the basis of the enquiry officer appointed by him. It cannot be said to be that the petitioner was prejudiced by such an action. Further the revisional authority while ordering enquiry had directed a fresh enquiry to be conducted by the first respondent. The power to order such an enquiry only vested with the 1st respondent and there is no scope for delegation of his powers. 19. It cannot be said to be that the petitioner was prejudiced by such an action. Further the revisional authority while ordering enquiry had directed a fresh enquiry to be conducted by the first respondent. The power to order such an enquiry only vested with the 1st respondent and there is no scope for delegation of his powers. 19. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is misconceived and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.