ORDER : Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel for both sides, all these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. These petitioners were erstwhile employees of the second respondent Society. While so, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against these petitioners on similar set of charges. In order to appreciate the facts, the facts relating to W.P.No.14620 of 2010 are required to be noticed for the purpose of disposal of all these cases. 3. That the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in the second respondent Society, against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuing a charge memo by the second respondent dated 15.04.2005, where there were three charges and by issuing the charge memo, explanation was sought for from the petitioner, who had given the same on 29.06.2005. Not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct domestic enquiry, before whom, though enquiry was conducted and he had given his enquiry report on 05.08.2006, it is the case of the petitioner that, in fact the Enquiry Officer has not at all conducted enquiry, as he has simply accepted the report submitted by the enquiry officer under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act (in short 'the Act') and based on which explanation was sought for from the petitioner, who also has given explanation on 23.04.2007. However, not satisfied with the same, the second respondent has passed the order of dismissal by order dated 20.11.2007, as against which, though revision was filed before the revisional authority under Section 153 of the Act, during the pendency of the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 4. Similarly, the other two writ petitioners also had travelled and accordingly they filed respective writ petitions. That is how all the three writ petitions came to be heard and are disposed of now. 5. Mr. S. Kamadevan, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that, though there was a Section 81 enquiry, that cannot be taken as conclusive proof to establish that the charges framed against the petitioners had been proved. 6. That is how all the three writ petitions came to be heard and are disposed of now. 5. Mr. S. Kamadevan, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that, though there was a Section 81 enquiry, that cannot be taken as conclusive proof to establish that the charges framed against the petitioners had been proved. 6. In this context, he would submit that, even though the Section 81 enquiry report may be the basis for framing the charge against these petitioners, once the charges are framed by initiating the disciplinary proceedings and after not satisfied with the explanation given by the delinquents / petitioners, it is the duty of the disciplinary authority to appoint an enquiry officer, who must go into the charges as well as the defence statement and even after the same if he is not satisfied, enquiry must be conducted, where, whatever may be the evidence in the form of oral or documentary evidence, that must be recorded. Based on such evidence to be recorded on behalf of the employer, opportunity should have been given to rebut the same by way of cross examination, if any, and only thereafter the Enquiry Officer must discuss and give his reasons as to how he came to the conclusion that a particular charge is proved or not proved and thereafter he has to complete the enquiry report and submit it to the disciplinary authority for his consideration. 7. When this procedure is contemplated in conducting any disciplinary proceedings, the same has not been followed in this case and in this regard, he had pointed out that the Enquiry Officer's report has only stated the charge as well as the defence taken by way of explanation given by the petitioner and ultimately, in one paragraph the Enquiry Officer has simply stated that, he has accepted the reports of the Section 81 enquiry and having accepted the same, that the charges framed against the petitioners were proved. By making this submission, he has relied upon the following passage of the Enquiry Officer's report dated 05.08.2006 for a perusal. "Other Language" 8. By making this submission, he has relied upon the following passage of the Enquiry Officer's report dated 05.08.2006 for a perusal. "Other Language" 8. Even this flaw on the part of the Enquiry Officer has been pointed out before the disciplinary authority while giving the second explanation by the petitioner on 23.04.2007 in W.P.No.14620 of 2010 and also by the other two writ petitioners, the same also has not been considered in proper perspective by the disciplinary authority i.e., the second respondent, who ultimately passed the impugned order of removal of service on 20.11.2007. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that, the impugned order passed by the second respondent shall not stand in the legal scrutiny and he seeks the indulgence of this Court. 9. Per contra, Mr. M. Liagat Ali, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent Society, on instructions, would submit that, all the three writ petitioners had joined together and had created bogus bills as if they purchased turmeric and accordingly hefty amount had been paid to the alleged agriculturists as if the turmeric has been purchased from them by the second respondent Society and by virtue of that, the Society has sustained loss to the extent of Rs.63 Lakhs. Since such a hefty loss cannot be withstood by the second respondent Society being a small agricultural society, Section 81 enquiry was conducted and based on the conclusive report given by the enquiry officer who conducted Section 81 enquiry, charges were framed and based on the charges, opportunity were given to all the delinquents who are the petitioners herein to give their explanation or defence, which they have also given. However, since there is no plausible reason available in the said defence given by the delinquents, the disciplinary authority had appointed an Enquiry Officer to proceed against the petitioners by conducting the enquiry. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry in the manner known to law and after having conducted the enquiry, where also due opportunity was given to the delinquents, the Enquiry Officer had concluded that the charges framed against the petitioners were proved. 10. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry in the manner known to law and after having conducted the enquiry, where also due opportunity was given to the delinquents, the Enquiry Officer had concluded that the charges framed against the petitioners were proved. 10. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that, after having accepted the Enquiry Officer's report, before taking any decision as to the punishment to be inflicted against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority had given further opportunity to all the delinquents, who also, after having utilized such second opportunity, have given their explanation / defence which were also once again considered by the disciplinary authority and then only the impugned orders were passed, where the maximum punishment of removal of service has been inflicted against the petitioners, in view of the seriousness of the charges, which were proved by the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer and therefore, the said procedure adopted by the second respondent in initiating, conducting and concluding the enquiry proceedings, which has ended in the impugned order, absolutely there is no violation of any law especially the procedure contemplated in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel contended that, no infirmity is found in the said impugned orders and the same are to be sustained. 11. Learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent would also submit that, against the order of dismissal dated 20.11.2007, the petitioners have chosen to approach the revisional authority under Section 153 of the Act and the Revisional Authority, after having considered the merits of the case, has rejected the revisions by order dated 09.12.2009, where also, all these aspects now canvassed and projected by the petitioners, have been canvassed, which were also considered by the revisional authority, who has ultimately come to the conclusion that the punishment of removal of service inflicted against the petitioners, are to be sustained and accordingly the revisions were rejected. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent would submit that, no interference is called for against the impugned orders in all these writ petitions. Therefore, he seeks to sustain the impugned orders and reject the writ petitions. 12. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned Standing Counsel and perused the materials placed on record. I have also considered the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent. 13. Therefore, he seeks to sustain the impugned orders and reject the writ petitions. 12. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned Standing Counsel and perused the materials placed on record. I have also considered the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent. 13. In this context, it is to be looked into that, the Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, having recorded the charge as well as the defence taken by the delinquents / petitioners by written statement, had come to the conclusion by accepting the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry under Section 81 of the Act, and ultimately concluded that the charges framed against the petitioners were proved. 14. The relevant portion of the decision made by the Enquiry Officer has also been quoted herein above, where he has simply stated that, copy of the enquiry report under Section 81 was furnished to the delinquents and on the basis of the said Section 81 enquiry alone, charges were framed and the enquiry officer who conducted the Section 81 enquiry has concluded that these delinquents were responsible for the loss sustained by the Society and in order to repudiate the same, no documents have been filed by the delinquents and no witness have been produced by the delinquents and therefore, in that circumstances, the enquiry officer had no other option except to come to the conclusion that the charges framed against the delinquents are proved. 15. This cryptic reason stated by the Enquiry Officer, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not in consonance with the procedure to be adopted in conducting an enquiry in a disciplinary proceedings. 16. No doubt, Section 81 enquiry was conducted against these delinquents, which may be the basis for framing charges against these petitioners. 15. This cryptic reason stated by the Enquiry Officer, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not in consonance with the procedure to be adopted in conducting an enquiry in a disciplinary proceedings. 16. No doubt, Section 81 enquiry was conducted against these delinquents, which may be the basis for framing charges against these petitioners. Once definite charges have been framed against the delinquents as against which they have given explanation / defence, denying those charges and they requested for dropping the disciplinary proceedings and if the said defence or explanation is not acceptable to the disciplinary authority, then the procedure to be adopted is to conduct the departmental enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer and in this case, though such an Enquiry Officer was appointed, before whom enquiry was conducted, the Enquiry Officer, instead of conducting the enquiry in the manner known to law, has simply accepted the Section 81 Enquiry Officer's report and based on which, he has come to the conclusion that the charges were approved. 17. This method adopted by the Enquiry Officer is not in consonance with the procedure which ought to have been followed by the Enquiry Officer, where he must have given an opportunity to the second respondent to produce the documents through the employee or staff of the second respondent Society to establish the charges framed against the petitioners and once such documents were filed, opportunity should have been given to the delinquents i.e., the petitioners to cross examine the persons through whom such documents were filed and also, if they requested, a copy of those documents should have been furnished to the delinquents and thereafter, after giving an opportunity to take defence, either to accept the documents or otherwise, and then only the Enquiry Officer must have come to the conclusion that the charges have been proved or not proved. 18. Such a procedure has not been conducted in this case, which is explicit if we go through the Enquiry Officer's report. No doubt, in the departmental proceedings the degree of proof is only preponderance of probabilities and then to meet that degree of proof, there must be a minimal requirement of conducting the enquiry in a fair manner, which the Enquiry Officer has not adopted in this case. No doubt, in the departmental proceedings the degree of proof is only preponderance of probabilities and then to meet that degree of proof, there must be a minimal requirement of conducting the enquiry in a fair manner, which the Enquiry Officer has not adopted in this case. Therefore, this Court, for the said reason alone is inclined to interfere with the report of the Enquiry Officer and therefore, based on such Enquiry Officer's report when the second respondent has decided to inflict the punishment, that too the maximum punishment of dismissal from service, certainly the said order of punishment also is equally infirm or flawed. Therefore, that has to be interfered with. Moreover, when revision was filed by each of the petitioners before the first respondent / revisional authority, he has also not considered those aspects in proper perspective and therefore the said order passed by the revisional authority also is infirm and the same is also liable to be interfered with. 19. For all these reasons and discussions made above, this Court is inclined to pass the following order in these writ petitions. 20. That the respective impugned orders in these writ petitions are hereby quashed. As a sequel, the petitioners are entitled to get reinstatement. Since it is informed that, all the three writ petitioners have already reached superannuation, the question of reinstatement does not arise for the purpose of working at the second respondent Society for the remaining period and therefore, the petitioners shall be treated as if they have been reinstated or they have continued till their superannuation for notional purpose. 21. Therefore, the total service of the petitioners till their services were terminated through the impugned orders and subsequent notional service till their superannuation shall be taken into account for the purpose of continuity of service and for all consequential benefits like D.C.R.G., and other related attendant benefits. But, it is made clear that none of the petitioners are entitled to get any backwages for the whole period they were out of service by adopting the theory of 'No Work No Pay'. 22. With these directions, the writ petitions are disposed of in the terms indicated above. No costs.