Judgment 1. Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the notice issued under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act by the second respondent on 22.01.2013 insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 2. The petitioner was posted as Special Officer (Additional Charge) of Peelamedu Industrial Workers Building Society for the period from 2006 to 2008. At that point of time, one Mr. D. Sivanandam was the Secretary of the said Society. On 22.02.2008, the second respondent ordered an enquiry under Section 81 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (for short, “The Act”), pertaining to irregularities in respect of sale of plots during the period from 2005 to 2007. The Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry under Section 81 of the Act and forwarded his report dated 29.08.2008 to the first respondent. The Enquiry Officer found that the Former Secretary D. Sivanandam is responsible for the loss to the Society. The Enquiry Officer attributed negligence on the part of the petitioner in having allowed the said D. Sivanandam to retire and lack of supervision. Pursuant to the report, the second respondent issued a charge memo dated 26.12.2008 to the petitioner. After enquiry, the second respondent by order dated 28.02.2011 imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year. Thereafter, on 13.08.2010, another enquiry under Section 81 of the Act was ordered by the first respondent. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer dated 19.08.2011, the second respondent has issued a notice under Section 87 of the Act on 22.01.2013. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Mr. Sivanandam, the Former Secretary, was responsible for the lapses and insofar as the petitioner is concerned, only negligence on his part has been attributed. He further placed his elaborate submissions by relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in S.V.K. Sahasramam vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies, reported in (2008) 8 MLJ 231 ; and also the judgment of this Court in D. Sathyamoorthy vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and others, and the judgment of this Court in K. Gopalan Manager, Internal Audit Nilgiris District Central Co-operative Bank & Others vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Udhagamandalam Circle & Others. 4. Heard both sides. 4. Heard both sides. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 5. At the outset, I have to point out that the Writ Petition filed at this stage is too premature on the basis of the notice issued under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Admittedly, the enquiry under Section 81 of the Act is just like a preliminary enquiry aimed to find out the facts and to submit a report to the authority concerned for initiation of proceedings and mere report will not result in any civil consequence. Such an enquiry cannot be compared to an enquiry against any individual employee. After Section 81 enquiry report, as a follow up action, various other steps may be taken viz., surcharge proceedings can be initiated under Section 87 of the Act or steps can also be taken for initiating criminal proceedings, it tantamounts to notice. Thereafter, the petitioner is entitled to give explanation under law by raising all the defences including the pleadings raised in this Writ Petition. But, without giving explanation, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. In the case in hand, a counter has also been filed. In the counter, a specific finding has been given insofar as the earlier Secretary of the Society is concerned, therefore, the petitioner can take the pleadings in the Writ Petition in his reply to the notice. 6. Taking into consideration of the fact that on the basis of the notice issued under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the petitioner has rushed to this Court by filing the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition is too premature and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is given liberty to raise all his defences including the pleadings raised in this Writ Petition before the authority concerned. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.