JUDGMENT : (N. NAGARESH, J.) The petitioners are the payroll employees of Viswadeepthi Multi State Agri Co-operative Society Ltd. The petitioners state that they are being harassed by the officers under respondents 3 to 11 in connection with the complaint lodged against the Society. 2. The Society is managed by the Managing Committee as per various Sections of the Multi-State Co- operative Societies Act, 2002 and Rules framed thereunder. The remedy of the depositors and other investors of the Society lies under the purview of the enactment. It is clear from the enactment that the Society is managed by the Managing Committee and Board of Directors approved by the authority under the enactment. Now, the respondents are harassing the petitioners in connection with complaints lodged against the Society. 3. The petitioners are only the employees of the Viswadeepthi Multi State Agri Co-operative Society Ltd. As per the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 and Rules framed thereunder and as per the appointment order, the petitioners are not responsible for the day today administration of the Society. The petitioners filed a detailed complaint before the 2 nd respondent on 22.04.2025 addressing the true facts. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 5. Government Pleader representing the respondents submitted that there was large scale fraud in the Society and the Police is investigating the matter. It is in connection with the investigation that certain individuals were called for interrogation. This cannot be treated as harassment by the Police. As the petitioners were employees of the Society, their presence may be necessary for investigation. 6. For investigation purpose, if the petitioners are called to the Police Station, it cannot be treated as harassment. The respondents otherwise cannot harass the petitioners. In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to harass the petitioners. However, this will not preclude the respondents from insisting on the presence of the petitioners, if it is found necessary, for further investigation in the matter.