IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 21408 of 2004(W)
1. JAYARAJAN M., BINDHU BHAVANAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
... Respondent
2. PEROOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR
For Respondent :SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES
Dated :01/12/2006
O R D E R
J.M.JAMES, J.
-------------------
W.P.(C). 21408/2004
--------------------
Dated this 1st day of December, 2006
JUDGMENT
Writ petitioner was the Honorary Secretary of
the second respondent, bank, from 22.1.1996. However,
he was made a Paid Secretary from 9.3.1998. There were
financial irregularities and it was alleged that he had
released an amount of Rs.50,000/-, without securing the
loan, to his wife. On 9.10.2001, an enquiry was
conducted and finding irregularities, he was kept under
suspension. Ext.P1 charge memo was issued on
10.10.2001.
2. It is submitted by the second respondent that
an amount of Rs.89,043/- was found due to the bank and
under Ext.R2(a), the writ petitioner had remitted an
amount of Rs.70,000/- undertaking to pay the balance
amount, thereafter.
3. The second respondent had appointed an
advocate as an Enquiry Officer, after ordering a domestic
W.P.(C).21408/2004
2
enquiry, on 27.2.2002. The petitioner had filed a
written statement against the charge, on 12.4.2002.
Enquiry stood for consideration on various dates. Then
Secretary-in-charge was examined on 15.5.2002.
Accordingly, enquiry report was submitted to the bank
on 4.6.2002. According to the learned counsel for the
second respondent, the same was communicated to the
writ petitioner, terminating him from service, as could be
seen from Ext.R2(d) dated 28.11.2006. Ext.R2(e) is the
acknowledgment card dated 10.12.2002.
4. While the learned counsel for the writ
petitioner submit that there was no hearing of the
petitioner, showing cause, why a major punishment of
termination of service was not to be imposed on the
petitioner. The learned counsel for the second
respondent, on the other hand, submit relying of Ext.R2
(e), that all the required procedures had been followed
and the writ petitioner had received the report of the
enquiry officer on 4.6.2002.
5. Ext.P6 is the decision dated 1.6.2004 of the
W.P.(C).21408/2004
3
first respondent disposing of the complaint, preferred by
the writ petitioner, and accepting the termination of his
service. However, the writ petitioner now challenges
that there was no proper procedure followed, before the
termination of the petitioner, as required under Rule
198(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969,
in short ‘the Rules’. The learned counsel for the
petitioner also submit that the first respondent, the Joint
Registrar, may be directed to consider the entire matter
including the procedures that had been followed, before
the imposition of a major punishment of terminating the
petitioner from the service of the second respondent,
bank.
6. The counsel for the second respondent
however, submit that the appointment of the petitioner
as Paid Secretary was not approved by the Registrar and,
therefore, even an enquiry was not warranted. The
procedure required to be followed had been completely
complied with. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed,
submits the counsel.
W.P.(C).21408/2004
4
7. Records are not before me. In the counter,
the second respondent had stated that the enquiry
report dated 4.6.2002 was communicated to the
petitioner, Ext.R2(e) being the acknowledgment card.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that through Ext.R2(e), the second respondent had
communicated a matter, in relation to another
communication and not relating to the enquiry report of
the Enquiry Officer as well as the show cause notice.
This fact requires further evidence for entering a finding.
8. I am not entering into any discussion on the
merit of the matter. The first respondent had accepted
the decision of the second respondent, bank, after
examining the records that had been produced before
him. However, Ext.P6 does not show, whether the first
respondent had examined the complaints of the non-
compliance of the procedure, as required under Rule 198
(2) of the Rules.
9. I cannot accept, at this stage, that the
appointment of the writ petitioner as Paid Secretary
W.P.(C).21408/2004
5
was not approved by the Registrar and hence no
domestic enquiry even need to be conducted. The
second respondent had opted to conduct an enquiry
through an Enquiry Officer. I find from the records that
almost all the procedures for conducting an enquiry had
been followed.
10. In the above facts situation, I set aside Ext.P6
order of the first respondent, Joint Registrar. I direct the
first respondent to call for the entire records leading to
the dismissal of the writ petitioner from service and pass
orders afresh, after examining the same under Rule 176
of the Rules. Before passing final orders, the first
respondent shall hear both the second respondent and
the writ petitioner and consider all their contentions.
11. The above exercise shall be completed within
one month from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
J.M.JAMES
mrcs JUDGE
W.P.(C).21408/2004
6