JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in her proceedings Na.Ka.1854/2014, Thu.Va.Tha.1, dated 20.06.2014 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to disburse the entire terminal benefits together with interest to the petitioner.) 1. The order of termination and the subsequent order passed by the Reviewing Authority under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner states that he was appointed as a Salesman and subsequently promoted as Clerk and Secretary in the 2nd respondent Society. On account of the allegations of misappropriation of the funds of the 2nd respondent/Co-operative Society to the tune of Rs.19,30,550/-, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. In view of the fact that the misappropriation was running to the tune of Rs.19,30,550/-, a charge memo was issued. The petitioner defended his case by denying the charges. However, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer found that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. The report of the enquiry was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, who in turn imposed the major penalty of termination from service. Against the order passed by the management of the 2nd respondent/Co-operative Society, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The Joint Registrar also adjudicated the facts and circumstances and formed an opinion that there was a misappropriation based on the enquiry report and accordingly, rejected the Review Petition filed by the writ petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the actual misappropriation was committed by the cashier and the petitioner being a Secretary, against whom, the allegation of the lapses alone is raised. Therefore, the major penalty is unwarranted. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that these aspects were not considered by the Enquiry Officer and as well as by the Statutory Enquiry Officer under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. None of the officials have considered these aspects with reference to the documents and evidences available on record. 5. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that these aspects were not considered by the Enquiry Officer and as well as by the Statutory Enquiry Officer under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. None of the officials have considered these aspects with reference to the documents and evidences available on record. 5. The 2nd respondent/Co-operative Society placed the records before this Court and perusal of the 81 enquiry report reveals that there was a collusion and lapses, which resulted in misappropriation of the funds of the 2nd respondent Co-operative Society to the tune of Rs.19,30,550/- In view of the fact that the petitioner is raising certain factual disputes, the same is to be adjudicated before the competent authority with reference to the original documents and evidences. Such an enquiry cannot be conducted by the High Court in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Act contemplates review under Section 154 of the Act before the competent authority. The Reviewing Authority is empowered to call for the entire records and adjudicate the factual issues on merits and in accordance with law, if required by taking further evidences. When such a scope is provided under the provisions of the Act, more specifically, under Section 154 of the Act, the petitioner has to exhaust the same, in view of the fact that he is raising certain factual disputes with reference to the findings. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has to exhaust the further alternate remedy contemplated under Section 154 of the Act for final adjudication of the disputed facts between the parties. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent/Co-operative Society brought to the notice of this Court that with reference to the misappropriation of the funds of the Society, a Criminal Case was registered before the Commercial Crimes Investigation of the Police Department in Crime No.3 of 2010 and the Criminal Case is now pending on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Panruti.In view of the fact that the Criminal Case is also pending, this Court cannot review the order of termination at this point of time. Apart from the criminal proceedings surcharge proceedings, were also initiated to recover the financial loss caused to the Society under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Apart from the criminal proceedings surcharge proceedings, were also initiated to recover the financial loss caused to the Society under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Final order in the surcharge proceedings is also passed to the tune of Rs.21,20,651.50/-, with reference to the surcharge order passed under Section 87 of the Act, the aggrieved persons are at liberty to approach the Special Tribunal for Co-operative cases under Section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Thus, the threefold action, which all are permissible under the Act were initiated against the writ petitioner. The threefold action namely departmental disciplinary proceedings, surcharge proceedings and a criminal case were initiated based on the statutory enquiry report under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. When the threefold actions are simultaneously permissible under the Act, all such actions were initiated against the writ petitioner including the surcharge proceedings, which ended with an order of acquittal against the petitioner and three others. 7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has to exhaust further remedy contemplated under Act against the surcharge proceedings and further, to face the pending criminal case for the purpose of defending his case in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. This being the factum established, this Court is of an opinion that the order of termination which has been confirmed by the Reviewing Authority cannot be interfered by the High Court at this point of time and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Reviewing Authority under Section 154 of the Act for the purpose of redressal of their grievance in the manner known to law. 8. With these observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.