IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 15501 of 2005(U)
1. D. GOPINATHAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VAIKOM TOWN SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. THE ARBITRATOR,
3. S. RAJAPPAN NAIR,
4. K.K. CHELLAPPAN,
5. K.K. SURENDRANATHAN NAIR,
6. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
For Respondent :SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
Dated :07/06/2007
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH J.
----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.15501 of 2005
----------------------------------------------
Dated 7th June, 2007.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was an erstwhile employee(Secretary) of
the first respondent cooperative bank. During 7.4.1988 to
7.7.1988, raw cashew nuts were procured by the bank. According
to the petitioner, the 5th respondent committed certain
irregularities. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that
he was only a Peon. Be that as it may, the petitioner retired from
service on 28.3.1989. More than four years thereafter, the
Director Board took a decision to initiate arbitration proceedings
and ARC 3881/1993 was filed. An award was passed in the year
2001, fixing liability on the petitioner to the tune of Rs.11,940.85.
Though the petitioner attempted an appeal before the Tribunal,
that was also of no avail. It is the main contention of the
petitioner that initiation of proceedings after a long period of his
retirement amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitition.
Petitioner is denied reasonable opportunity to peruse the records
and take up his defences. It is to be noted that the suit is one for
recovery of money on account of the alleged loss caused to the
WP(C) NO.15501/05 2
bank in the matter of procurement of low quality cashew. After
having extensively heard counsel on both sides, I am of the view
that neither the Arbitrator nor the Tribunal has considered the
grievance of the petitioner in the proper perspective. The
allegation after all is that the procurement was of low quality
cashew and in the process, the first respondent sustained loss.
But such a case is taken up only more than five years after the
alleged procurement. It is also to be seen that the petitioner had
retired from service and the arbitration case itself is filed after 4
= years of his retirement. In such circumstances, the petitioner is
certainly denied a reasonable opportunity to defend his case, in
the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, initiation of
the action for alleged recovery of loss is unwarranted. The
impugned orders are hence quashed.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.
tgs
KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
———————————————-
O.P. NO. OF 2003
———————————————-
J U D G M E N T
Dated 7th June, 2007.