IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2179 of 2008()
1. DELSON.P.DAVIS, SECRETARY (UNDER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TRICHUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL
... Respondent
2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :20/11/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.
================================
W.A.No.2179 of 2008
===============================
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
KOSHY, J.
The appellant is the Secretary of the Co-Operative Hospital
Ltd. He was suspended pending enquiry by Ext.P6 order dated
22.9.2008. The above society was superceded and the
suspension order was issued by the Convenor of the
Administrative Committee. Six charges were mentioned in
Ext.P6 suspension memo. It is the contention of the petitioner
that even if all the six allegations are admitted no action can be
taken against him. When he was the Secretary, he was
implementing all the directions of the Director Board and there is
no dereliction of the duty on his part. After the writ petition was
filed, another memo was issued containing additional charges. It
is his case that even the additional charges were framed with
malafide intentions. There is no prima facie case against him. It
is also contended that since the Administrative Committee was
W.A.No.2179 of 2008
2
not the appointing authority it could not take disciplinary action
against him. We are of the view that when Administrative
Committee takes charge of the management of the society, if any
misconduct is committed by the employee, it is entitled to initiate
action against the delinquent employee. But suspension can be
made only for very valid reasons. For misconduct alleged, every
person need not be suspended. Only if charges are very serious
and continuation of the employee in his post will affect the
enquiry, then only suspension pending enquiry need be imposed.
Learned counsel for the respondents contended that petitioner
has got an effective remedy under Section 69(d) of the Kerala
Co-Operative Societies Act. Therefore, if the petitioner is
aggrieved by the suspension order, he may take the alternative
remedy as directed by the learned Single Judge. It is true that
the subsistence allowance as per Rules during the period of
suspension should be released to the petitioner. The enquiry has
to be concluded within three months from the date of judgment
W.A.No.2179 of 2008
3
of the learned Single Judge as directed in the impugned
judgment. If the enquiry is not able to be concluded in three
months ie., before 7.1.2009, the suspension should be
immediately dropped and the appellant should be reinstated in
service, though enquiry can be continued. The petitioner should
also co-operate with the enquiry.
With these observations, this appeal is dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE
bkn/-