IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 33288 of 2006(K)
1. K.P.KRISHNANKUTTY,
... Petitioner
2. K.P.GANGADHARAN,
Vs
1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. THE NEDIYANGA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
For Petitioner :SRI.V.C.JAMES
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES
Dated :15/12/2006
O R D E R
J.M.JAMES, J.
-------------------
W.P.(C). 33288/2006
--------------------
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2006
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioners are the employees of the
second respondent, bank. There were allegations of mis-
appropriation and mis-conduct, during their service. They
were proceeded against, as per the service rules. The
allegations made against them were found to be proved.
Therefore, the punishment, as prescribed under the
Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, in short ‘the
Rules’, had been imposed. However, a vigilance case had
been registered against three persons, including the writ
petitioners herein. The Vigilance and Anti corruption
Bureau had continued with the investigation. On
collection of the materials, F.I.R had been lodged under
Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1984, and also under Sections 109, 465,
467, 468, 471, 477A, 201 and 120B of IPC.
2. On receiving the information from Vigilance
W.P.(C).33288/2006
2
and Anti Corruption Bureau, the first respondent, the
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, through his
communication dated 28.11.2006, had addressed the
second respondent to place the writ petitioners under
suspension, as their continuance in service would affect
the further investigation of the criminal case.
3. Basing on the communication of the first
respondent, the second respondent issued a show cause
notice to the writ petitioners, directing them to show
cause why they should not be suspended from service.
Accordingly, both the writ petitioners had filed their
replies. The same are thus under consideration of the
second respondent. While so, the petitioners came up
before this Court, praying that, as a domestic enquiry
had already been completed and penalties imposed,
according to the Rules, there should not be a further
suspension, which would affect their very existence and
their family members also would be put into difficulties.
4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners
W.P.(C).33288/2006
3
submitted, relying on Muhammed Kutty v. Secretary
to Government (2002 (1) KLT 880), to emphasis the
point that the Joint Registrar has got no authority to
direct the second respondent, bank, to suspend their
employees. The counsel also relied on Gopinathan
Nair v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (1978
KLT 392) to argue that, discretion has to be exercised
by an authority invested with such discretion and law
has to be exercised uninfluenced by the directions of any
extraneous authority. The counsel, therefore, submitted
that the first respondent had got no authority to direct
the second respondent to suspend the writ petitioners.
5. The learned Government Pleader, on the other
hand, submits relying on State of Rajasthan v.
B.K.Meena and Others (1996 (6) SCC 417) to
argue that “disciplinary proceedings are meant not
really to punish the guilty, but to keep the administrative
machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements”. On
W.P.(C).33288/2006
4
the other hand, criminal proceedings are initiated to see
whether the accused had committed any offence as
alleged against them. The Government Pleader also
placed reliance on Depot Manager, A.P. State Road
Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya
(1997 (2) SCC 699) to reiterate the point that the
purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are
too different and distinct aspects. The criminal
prosecution is lodged for an offence, for the violation of a
duty, which the offender owes to the society.
Departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the
service and efficiency of public service. Both the
proceedings are distinct and different.
6. The above legal principles clearly show that
there can be criminal proceedings as well as
departmental enquiries. In the case at hand, the plea of
the writ petitioners is that the allegations made against
them had been found proved and, therefore, the
punishments, as prescribed under the Rules, had been
W.P.(C).33288/2006
5
impose on them. Hence, the suspension at the instance
of the first respondent, need not be again imposed.
7. As discussed above, the show cause notice
had been issued and the replies furnished by both the
writ petitioners. The final decision has to come from the
second respondent, the Co-operative bank.
8. In the above legal and factual situation, the
second respondent shall take an independent decision,
uninfluenced by the directions of the first respondent to
suspend them. On the suspension of the writ petitioners,
this Court, at this stage, need not interfere with the show
cause notice issued by the second respondent or the
replies furnished by the writ petitioners. It is for the
disciplinary authority, the managing committee of the
second respondent, to take appropriate decision, in view
of the legal principles discussed above. Therefore, I find
no further orders are necessary to be given through this
writ petition.
9. However, I make it clear that the writ
W.P.(C).33288/2006
6
petitioners will be free to redress their grievance, if
their interests are adversely affected, in the order that
may be passed by the second respondent.
The writ petition is closed as above.
J.M.JAMES
JUDGE
mrcs