P.J.Chacko vs The Kadavoor Service … on 8 October, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 2224 of 2009()


1. P.J.CHACKO, AGED 52 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KADAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER,

3. K.K.SALI, CHAIRMAN, SUB COMMITTEE,

4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

5. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

6. THE STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :08/10/2009

 O R D E R
         KURIAN JOSEPH & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
            -----------------------------------------
                   W.A.No.2224 of 2009
            -----------------------------------------
          Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009

                          JUDGMENT

Kurian Joseph,J.

Appellant is the petitioner. Petitioner approached this

court aggrieved by the conduct of disciplinary proceedings,

more particularly the procedure adopted in the matter. The

crux of the contention is that the petitioner was not given

sufficient or even reasonable opportunity to effectively

participate in the proceedings. It is submitted that an

application for adducing proper evidence was turned down.

The further submission is that the petitioner is close to his

retirement and the veiled motive on the part of the first

respondent is to somehow impose a severe punishment on the

petitioner by conducting the disciplinary proceedings even

irregularly. The learned single Judge declined to interfere with

the matter holding that this is not the stage for the court to

interfere. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the

learned single Judge. However, we make it clear that it will be

open to the appellant/petitioner to take all available

W.A.No.2224 of 2009
-:2:-

contentions at the appropriate stage including the contention that

the petitioner has suffered prejudice and injustice in view of the

hasty and irregular proceedings adopted by the first respondent

or the enquiry officer.

Without prejudice to such liberty, this writ appeal is

dismissed.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

(P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE)
ahg.

KURIAN JOSEPH &
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.

—————————

W.A.No.2224 of 2009

—————————-

JUDGMENT

8th October, 2009