JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent pursuant to the order passed in case No. TNSE, 10/04 dated 31.01.2006 and quash the same. 2. The petitioner is a special officer of A-2636, Madurai Taluk Cooperative institutions staff's Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Kamarajar Nagar 2nd street, Tallakulam, Madurai, which is a co-operative institution registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder. It has got its own By-Laws with regard to its objects and affairs of the institution and registered Special By-Laws with regard to the service conditions of the staff of the society. 3. The second respondent herein was employed as clerk and thereafter he was promoted as Secretary. As per the by-law of the society, the petitioner was expected to safeguard the interest as well as the properties of the Society. In order to look after the day to day affairs of the society, specific duties and responsibilities were entrusted with him and he was expected to do his duties and responsibilities without any hindrance, as per the By-law of the Society and as per the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Though he was a paid servant of the Society, he was solely responsible for all day-to-day administration and accordingly he was to sue and to be sued on behalf of the Society. He became part and parcel of Management and was expected to do his duties and responsibilities so as to safeguard the interest of the Society. Thus he became responsible for the losses caused to the Society by himself as well as the other staff. Accordingly, he was issued with a charge memo, dated 18.12.2002 and called for explanation. The second respondent also submitted his explanation dated 27.12.2002 which was found unsatisfactory and domestic enquiry was concluded, wherein all the charges levelled against the second respondent were proved beyond reasonable doubts. It is reiterated during the course of enquiry he was provided with more than sufficient opportunities to defend his case and the principle of natural justice was very well adhered through the first show cause notice dated 19.02.2004 which called for an explanation. 4. It is reiterated during the course of enquiry he was provided with more than sufficient opportunities to defend his case and the principle of natural justice was very well adhered through the first show cause notice dated 19.02.2004 which called for an explanation. 4. The writ petitioner after the receipt of the findings from Enquiry Officer carefully scrutinized the entire records like charge memo, explanation submitted by the second respondent, enquiry proceedings, the evidences given by the witnesses during the course of enquiry and on the findings of the enquiry officer who came to a conclusion that all the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent were proved beyond reasonable doubts and hence the second show cause notice was issued proposing the punishment of dismissal and other proportionate punishment and also called for an explanation. The second respondent also submitted his explanation dated 11.03.2004 which was carefully scrutinized and found unsatisfactory by the Management/writ petitioner, who then passed the final order dated 14.05.2004 confirming the proposed punishment of dismissal since the proven charges were serious and grave in nature. Aggrieved against the said order, the second respondent preferred an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act before the Appellate Authority. The appellate Authority set aside the order passed by the management/writ petitioner, vide order dated 31.01.2006. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by the Management. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the second respondent died. The petitioner management has filed a petition to implead the Legal representatives of the deceased second respondents as respondents 3 to 7. The said application was ordered on 25.03.2013. Notice was also directed to be served on the impleaded respondents 3 to 7. But batta is returned for want of correct address. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to serve notice on the respondents 3 to 7, I am not inclined to give time to the petitioner, since the writ petition was filed in the year 2006 and almost 11 years have lapsed. At this distant point of time, adjourning the matter to serve notice on the impleaded respondents would cause further delay. Hence, this Court is of the view to decide the case on merits. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the materials available on record. 7. At this distant point of time, adjourning the matter to serve notice on the impleaded respondents would cause further delay. Hence, this Court is of the view to decide the case on merits. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the materials available on record. 7. A perusal of the appellate authority order dated 31.01.2006 would go to show that the second respondent has taken due action for the lapses committed by the Senior Clerk and Accountant of the Society and moreover he has given a written complaint regarding non-maintenance of cash. Further the FIR was also filed against Bomminathan and then President Rajasekar by the CCWI Police and thus, it is clear that the second respondent was not involved in any financial misappropriation. It is useful to extract the operative portion of the order of the appellate authority dated 31.01.2006 hereunder: “From the above, it is clear that the appellant had taken prompt efforts to take the matter to the knowledge of the Special Officer very frequently and the management did not take nay action against the erring employees. Further, the First Information Report was also filed against Tvl.Bomminathan and the then President Rajasekar by the CCWI Police and the appellant was not involved in any financial misappropriation. These were not cleared in the Domestic Enquiry.” 8. From the above, it is clear that the second respondent has taken prompt efforts to take the matter to the knowledge of the Special Officer very frequently and the management did not take any action against the erring employees. The appellate authority after taking note of all these aspects has rightly come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the second respondent are not proved with satisfactory evidence. The said reasoned order does not require interference at the hands of this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to the dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.