ORDER : In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Order dated 07.08.2013 of the 1 st respondent passed under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. By the Impugned Order dated 07.08.2013, the 1 st respondent has affirmed the Order dated 16.02.2013 of the 2 nd Respondent Society terminating the service of the petitioner from the 2 nd Respondent Society. Operative portion of the Impugned Order dated 07.08.2013 reads as under:- 3. In the background of the Order dated 16.02.2013 of the 2 nd Respondent Society terminating the service of the petitioner from the 2 nd Respondent Society is a surcharge proceeding under Section 87 of the Act initiated against the petitioner and a Charge Memo dated 22.02.2012 issued to the petitioner under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 applicable to the 2 nd Respondent Society. 4. The aforesaid Charge Memo dated 22.02.2012 was issued to the petitioner in the light of the purported/perceived loss suffered by the 2 nd Respondent Society for a sum of Rs.1,03,513.75/- on account of the alleged failure of the petitioner to take interests of the 2 nd Respondent Society in his capacity as the salesman in the Fair Price Shop run under the control of the 2 nd Respondent Society. 5. The details of the purported loss in the aforesaid Charge Memo dated 22.02.2012 are as under:- Sl. No. Heads Amount Year Place of instance 1 For damaged goods and difference in quantity of goods and gunny bags Rs.52,089.75/- 1997-1998 – 2003-2004 Therkunam & Edacheri 2 For damaged goods Rs.40,380.00/- 2003-2004 Thailapuram 3 For difference in the quantity of goods Rs.11,044.00/- 2003-2004 Thailapuram Total Rs.1,03,513/- 6. As far as the surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Act is concerned, an Award in A.F.No.4/2010-2011 came to be passed by the Sub-Registrar of Co-operative Society/Field Officer/Arbitrator in the Court of Arbitrator, Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District on 31.12.2011, whereby the petitioner was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.52,089.75/- towards the alleged loss suffered by the 2 nd Respondent Society during the period 1997-1998 to 2003-2004 in the shops located in Therkunam and Edacheri. During the aforesaid period, the total loss sustained by the 2 nd Respondent Society was estimated at Rs.17,808.75/-. During the aforesaid period, the total loss sustained by the 2 nd Respondent Society was estimated at Rs.17,808.75/-. The interest on the alleged loss sustained by the 2 nd Respondent Society was calculated at 14% till 31.12.2011 for a sum of Rs.34,281/- on the aforesaid principal sum of Rs.17,808.75/-. 7. Thus, in all, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.52,089.75/- (Rs.17,808.75/- + Rs.34,281.00/-). The petitioner filed C.M.A. (CS) No.14 of 2013 under Section 152(1) of the Act read with Rule 168 and Rule 169 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 before the District Court at Villupuram. 8. By an Order dated 06.09.2019, the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, partly allowed the appeal by restricting the award amount to Rs.6,746/- with interest at 14% over and above a sum of Rs.7,797/-, which the petitioner had admitted and paid for the alleged loss suffered by the 2 nd Respondent Society. 9. Thus, in all, as against Rs.52,089.75/- consisting of (Rs.17,808.75/- + Rs.34,281.00/-), liability of the petitioner was reduced to Rs.14,543/- (Rs.7,797/- + Rs.6,746/-) 10. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be held liable for the loss sustained by the 2 nd Respondent Society as the goods that were damaged were not on account of any fault of the petitioner but on account of the previous employees, namely, Subbarayan and Chellappan during their tenure at Thailapuram Fair Price Shop and that he had given a written complaint dated 08.06.2010 to the Secretary of the 2 nd Respondent Society. 11. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined in Thailapuram Fair Price Shop only from 01.11.2009 whereas, the loss for the damaged goods for a sum of Rs.40,380/- and the loss incurred on account of the difference in the quantity of the goods for a sum of Rs.11,044/- out of Rs.1,03,513.75/- occurred during the tenure of the said Subbarayan and Chellappan and cannot be the basis to proceed against the petitioner. 12. It is further submitted that the liability in the aforesaid Charge Memo dated 22.02.2012 could not be fastened on the petitioner as the petitioner was not the employee in Thailapuram Fair Price Shop during the said period. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner also drew attention of this Court to the final Notice dated 10.07.2011 issued to the petitioner and said Subbrayan and Chellappan. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner also drew attention of this Court to the final Notice dated 10.07.2011 issued to the petitioner and said Subbrayan and Chellappan. It is stated that the notice dated 10.07.2011 had been issued to recover a sum of Rs.46,163/- by the 2 nd Respondent Society not only to the petitioner but also to the aforesaid Subbarayan and Chellappan for the alleged loss caused to the 2 nd Respondent Society. 13. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner was wrongly suspended from service by the 2 nd Respondent Society based on the Audit Objection for the year 2003-2004 on 01.12.2011 and therefore, the petitioner preferred a statutory revision under Section 153 of the Act against the aforesaid Suspension Order dated 01.12.2011. 14. The aforesaid Suspension Order dated 01.12.2011 based on the Audit Objection raised for the year 2003-2004 was subsequently revoked on 04.10.2012 in view of the Charge Memo dated 22.02.2012 issued against the petitioner for the alleged loss suffered by the 2 nd Respondent Society. 15. It is further case of the petitioner that in the parallel proceedings under Section 87 of the Act, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.7,797/- to the 2 nd Respondent Society as per the directions of the 1 st respondent. 16. Defending the Impugned Order dated 07.08.2013, the learned Special Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent would submit that the Impugned Order of the 1 st respondent as also the 2 nd Respondent Society did not suffer any infirmity and therefore this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 17. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to Charge Memo dated 22.02.2012 but also the petitioner has been visited with such provisions under Section 87 of the Act and therefore on this count also this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. 17. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to Charge Memo dated 22.02.2012 but also the petitioner has been visited with such provisions under Section 87 of the Act and therefore on this count also this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. In the Counter Affidavit, it is submitted by the respondents that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the 1 st respondent made in Na.Ka.No.1212/2013 Sa.Pa dated 07.08.2013, then it is open for the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy by way of filing Revision Petition under Section 154 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 by paying prescribed fees before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Villupuram Region, Villupuram District, before knocking the doors of this Court. 19. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent and the learned counsel for the 2 nd Respondent Society. I have also perused the documents that have been filed before this Court including the surcharge order passed by the 2 nd Respondent Society and the order passed by the revisional authority namely the Principal District Judge at Villupuram in C.M.A.(CS) No.14 of 2013. 20. The petitioner has been removed from service as the Inquiry Officer has found the petitioner guilty of all the charges in the aforesaid Charge Memo dated 22.02.2012. The findings of the Inquiry Officer was accepted by the 2 nd Respondent Society vide Order dated 16.02.2013 and the service of the petitioner was terminated. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a revision of the dated 16.02.2013 before the 1 st respondent, which has been affirmed by the Impugned Order 07.08.2013 pursuant to directions of this Court dated 23.04.2013 in W.P.No.11729 of 2013. 21. As detailed in Paragraph 5 of this order, the charges for the purported misconduct of the petitioner for the period between 1997-1998 and 2003-2004 at Therkunam and Edacheri cannot be countenanced as the petitioner started over looking the Fair Price Shops at Therkunam and Edacheri from 2001. 22. In any event, the amount of Rs.52,089.75/- has been reduced to Rs.6,746/- over and above Rs.7,797/- which was paid by the petitioner. 22. In any event, the amount of Rs.52,089.75/- has been reduced to Rs.6,746/- over and above Rs.7,797/- which was paid by the petitioner. As far as the loss suffered on account of damaged goods and difference in the quantity at Thailapuram Fair Price Shop is for the period between 2003-2004. However, the petitioner was employed at the Thailapuram Fair Price Shop only from 2009 with effect from 01.11.2009. There are records that indicate and affirm the stand of the petitioner. A final notice dated 10.07.2011 was issued to the petitioner and also to the previous employees Subbarayan and Chellappan, to recover a sum of Rs.46,163/-. 23. The petitioner cannot be found fault for the loss suffered on account for the alleged deteriorated goods at Thailapuram Fair Price Shop when the petitioner was not even at Thailapuram. 24. Similarly, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability for the difference in the quantity during the aforesaid period when the Thailapuram Fair Price Shop was not even under the control of the petitioner. Clearly, the order of the 2 nd Respondent Society dated 16.02.2013 which has been affirmed by the 1 st respondent vide Impugned Order dated 07.08.2013 are nothing but an abuse of machinery for initiating disciplinary proceedings against an employee. 25. The punishment of removal of the petitioner from service was clearly excessive and disproportionate. Even if it was to be assumed that the deterioration of the goods and the difference in the quantity was during the time when the petitioner was in charge of Thailapuram Fair Price Shop, the liability cannot be attributed to the petitioner warranting excessive punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service. 26. The fact remains that the petitioner was also proceeded under Section 87 of the Act which decision has been partly sustained by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram vide Order dated 06.09.2019 in C.M.A.(CS) No.14 of 2013. 27. The petitioner has already suffered without fault and hence, the Termination Order dated 16.02.2013 and the Impugned Order dated 07.08.2013 of the 1 st respondent affirming the Order dated 16.02.2013 of the 2 nd Respondent Society are arbitrary, excessive and highly punitive and vindictive and therefore the Impugned Order of the 1 st respondent herein is liable to be set aside with consequential relief. 28. 28. Since the petitioner would have already attained the age of superannuation, the respondents are directed to treat the period from the date of the Order of the 2 nd Respondent Society dated 16.02.2013 till the date of superannuation as the period under service and pay all the terminal benefits to the petitioner, as if the petitioner had been in service at the 2 nd Respondent Society. 29. This exercise shall be completed by the 2 nd Respondent Society within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The salary which had remained unpaid between the date of suspension till the date of termination shall also be paid along with the above amount within the aforesaid period. 30. The petitioner shall also be paid interest at statutory rate on the terminal benefits which the petitioner would have been entitled to, had the petitioner been in service till the date of superannuation. This exercise also shall be completed within the aforesaid period of 3 months. 31. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs.