JUDGMENT : The civil revision petition is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 09.04.2008, passed in C.M.A.CS.No.5 of 2006 and I.A.No.22 of 2007, on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is seen that surcharge proceedings had been initiated against the revision petitioner and others by the first respondent and accordingly, holding that the revision petitioners and others are liable to pay the amount as determined in the proceedings, which had occasioned, in particular as against the revision petitioner, due to his failure to effect proper superintendence of the records and the work of the staff of the Fair Price Shops and accordingly, holding him also liable for compensating the loss, which had occurred to the Society, concluded the surcharge proceedings against the revision petitioner and others. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner preferred civil miscellaneous appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, namely, the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai. Various contentions had been putforth by the revision petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal that the first respondent, to whom the adjudication was referred to, had laid the criminal complaint against the revision petitioner and based on the same, the criminal case had also been taken on file by the concerned Magistrate Court, according to him, the same person cannot act as the adjudicator of the proceedings as he had also been cited as a witness in the criminal case and accordingly, the order passed by the first respondent is totally vitiated and thereby, a serious infirmity had occurred and hence, his order is biased against the principles of natural justice and liable to be dismissed. Furthermore, it is stated that the first respondent had failed to communicate the enquiry report to the petitioner and thereby, denied the opportunity to present his case as per law. Also contended that the first respondent failed to take into consideration the duties and responsibilities of the revision petitioner and failed to note that the same do not extend to the inspection of the ration shops periodically and also superintendence of the records pertaining thereto and thereby, should have held that the charges levelled against the revision petitioner are baseless. Also contended that the first respondent failed to take into consideration the duties and responsibilities of the revision petitioner and failed to note that the same do not extend to the inspection of the ration shops periodically and also superintendence of the records pertaining thereto and thereby, should have held that the charges levelled against the revision petitioner are baseless. Also contended that no misappropriation had been done by the revision petitioner, in any manner, as determined in the surcharge proceedings and no loss had occasioned to the Society and without any application of mind, the surcharge proceedings had been initiated against him. Also contended that the surcharge proceedings could be initiated only by the Registrar or on his direction, by other competent Authority and therefore, the initiation of the surcharge proceedings suo motu by the first respondent lacks jurisdiction on his part. Further contended that the surcharge proceedings initiated against the revision petitioner had not been concluded within the stipulated time provided under the law and on that ground also, the surcharge proceedings are liable to the set aside. At the most, according to the revision petitioner, only negligence could be attributed to his part and when there is no wilful negligence as determined in the departmental enquiry initiated against the revision petitioner, there is no question of misappropriation or wilful negligence committed by the revision petitioner and therefore, on that ground also, the action levied against the revision petitioner should be dropped. Further, when the revision petitioner had been allowed to retire from service, no doubt subject to the surcharge proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings, inasmuch as he had not held the pensionable post, the continuation of the surcharge proceedings against him is vitiated and bad as determined by the various Authorities, accordingly, prayed for the entertainment of the civil miscellaneous appeal preferred by him. 3. 3. On a perusal of the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal, it is seen that an application had been moved by the revision petitioner for the reception of additional documents in support of his various contentions and though the abovesaid application for the reception of the additional documents had been resisted by the respondents, still considering that the documents projected by the revision petitioner would be useful for determining the issues involved in the matter and by way of the same, no serious prejudice would be caused to the respondents, accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to entertain the application of the revision petitioner for the reception of the additional documents. Furthermore, it is also noted that inasmuch as the revision petitioner had raised the contention that he has not been furnished the copy of the report under Section 81 of the Cooperative Societies Act and when according to the respondents, the further action, namely, surcharge proceedings had been initiated against the revision petitioner, only based on Section 81 report, and accordingly, based on the decision referred to by the Tribunal as well as considering that the request had already been made by the revision petitioner for furnishing the report prepared under Section 81 of the Cooperative Societies Act and noting that the complete report had not been given to him, which thereby had prevented the revision petitioner to project his case in a proper and legal manner and accordingly, determined that the surcharge proceedings had not been initiated in accordance with the principles of natural justice by giving due opportunity to the revision petitioner to putforth and defend his case, accordingly, on that footing deemed it fit to set aside the order passed by the first respondent and also taking into consideration that the revision petitioner had also putforth additional documents at the appellate stage for consideration, taking into consideration the abovesaid factors, chose to remit back the matter to the Lower Forum with a direction that the revision petitioner should be furnished the Section 81 report and accordingly, directed that the enquiry should be conducted afresh by affording due opportunity to the revision petitioner to present his case and accordingly, disposed of the civil miscellaneous appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred by the revision petitioner. 4. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred by the revision petitioner. 4. It is mainly argued by the revision petitioner's counsel that though the revision petitioner had putforth several contentions challenging the order of the first respondent, the Appellate Tribunal, without going into the abovesaid contentions in the right perspective and as per law, the Appellate Tribunal had erroneously chose to remit back the matter to the Lower Forum for deciding the issues afresh on the footing that Section 81 report has not been furnished to the revision petitioner as per law and thereby, contended that inasmuch the Appellate Tribunal had failed to consider the other points urged by him and if the same had been determined by the Appellate Tribunal in his favour, the impugned order of the first respondent would have been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal and in such view of the matter, contended that the order of remittance made by the Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 5. As above noted, two factors weighed with the Appellate Tribunal for remitting the matter back to the Lower Forum. One is that the appellant had projected certain documents in support of his case at the appellate stage and the said documents had been ordered to be received by the Appellate Tribunal for the effective adjudication of the matter. Furthermore, noting that the grievance of the revision petitioner is that he has not been furnished with the Section 81 report and noting that as contended by the revision petitioner, Section 81 report had not been furnished to him and the same had occasioned a serious prejudice to him to defend the proceedings properly and legally and thereby, the Lower Forum had not conducted the proceedings by following the principles of natural justice by affording adequate opportunity to the revision petitioner to defend his case, in such circumstances, it is seen that the Appellate Tribunal had proceeded to remit back the matter to the Lower Forum. 6. 6. In the light of the above factors, when it is seen that the Appellate Tribunal had taken into consideration the main point as regards the non-furnishing of the basic records i.e., Section 81 report to the revision petitioner, which had occasioned the failure of the observance of the principles of natural justice and all the more, when the revision petitioner had also projected some documents to sustain his case, in such view of the matter, I do not find any serious error in the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal remitting back the matter to the Lower Forum for the disposal of the issues involved in the matter afresh. 7. In the light of the above position, the various contentions putforth by the revision petitioner, as urged by him before the Appellate Tribunal, in my considered opinion, are not required to be determined at this stage of the matter as when the order of remittance passed by the Appellate Tribunal is found to be in accordance with law and accordingly, the matter had been left open to both parties to putforth their various contentions before the Lower Forum as per law and accordingly, the Lower Forum has also been directed to dispose of the issues involved in the matter again based on the additional documents projected by the revision petitioner as well as on furnishing Section 81 report to the revision petitioner, in all, accordingly, I deem it not fit to go into the merits of the various contentions projected by the revision petitioner as well as the authorities relied upon by him with reference to the same at the time of hearing, accordingly, confirm the impugned order of remittance of the Appellate Tribunal and thereby, dismiss the civil revision petition laid by the revision petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.