IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29883 of 2008(G)
1. K.P.MOYIN, S/O.MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MALAPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. THE DISCIPLINARY SUB COMMITTEE,
3. THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, MALAPPURAM
For Petitioner :SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ
For Respondent :SRI.V.G.ARUN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :24/11/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.29883 OF 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was placed under suspension from the service of
a co-operative bank. Disciplinary proceedings ended in his
dismissal from service. That was interfered with and ultimately
the matter stood relegated. Later, the issue again reached this
Court and by Ext.P19, this Court directed that the intra
institutional appeal should be considered by adverting to the
different contentions, including that the order of dismissal
should not have been passed with retrospective operation.
Ext.P21 is the appellate order now issued, holding that the
appeal is unsustainable.
2. Even in Ext.P19 judgment, this Court had noticed that the
petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy by way of
arbitration by recourse to Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act, 1969. Notwithstanding that, learned counsel for
the petitioner urged that the appellate order (Ext.P21) has been
WPC.29883/08
Page numbers
issued without considering any of the contentions of the
delinquent before the appeal committee. In this context, the
respondents were asked to state as to whether the appeal was
heard and whether the procedure was duly adopted.
Accordingly, a counter affidavit has been placed on record
producing the minutes of the appeal committee as Ext.R3(a).
Taking the impugned Ext.P21 and Ext.R3(a) together, it appears
to have been demonstrated that the committee of the bank
deliberated on the appeal on different dates and by hearing the
delinquent and even with reference to the materials, they have
drawn a conclusion. While the learned counsel for the petitioner
points out that all the charges have not been considered by bank
into cognizance with the grounds of objections referable to each
charge, learned counsel for the bank states that it is not so.
According to the petitioner, many of the monetary claims against
him further concluded against the bank by different decisions by
arbitrators and by revisional tribunals and that therefore, it was
impermissible for any charge to be levelled and sustained in
disciplinary proceedings on those issues. However, it cannot be
WPC.29883/08
Page numbers
conceded that there are certain other charges also which include
an allegation of having issued a loan in the name of the wife of
the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have a case that his
wife’s signature has been forged and he is innocent in the
matter. That is not an issue which has been concluded by any
competent statutory authority.
3. The aforesaid scenario and a close reading of Exts.P21 and
R3(a) tend to show that while it would not be proper to conclude
the petitioner from challenging the proceedings before the
competent authority under Section 69 of the KCS Act, it is quite
impermissible for this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to erase Ext.P21 or
to direct re-consideration of the appeal.
In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is closed
without prejudice to contentions, clarifying that all issues are left
open and that any proceedings of the petitioner, which may be
invoked in terms of Section 69, will be decided untrammeled by
WPC.29883/08
Page numbers
anything stated herein. Having regard to the fact the petitioner
is apparently on the verge of retirement, any authority who
would be moved under Section 69 would consider expeditious
final disposal of the matter.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.
kkb.