IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1493 of 2009()
1. KOTHAMANGALAM HOUSING CO-OP. BANK LTD.
... Petitioner
2. P.P.UTHUPPAN, PRESIDENT,
3. ELDHO JOSEPH, SECRETARY,
Vs
1. K.S.GIRIJA, D/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR,
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES,
3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.BABY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :13/07/2009
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
----------------------------------
W.A.No. 1493 OF 2009
-----------------------------------
Dated, this the 13th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The respondents 3 to 5 in the Writ Petition are the
appellants. The Writ Petition was filed by the 1st respondent
herein challenging, interalia, the disciplinary action initiated
against her and also the punishment of dismissal from service
imposed on her as per Ext.P34 order of the Sub Committee of
the 1st appellant Society. The disciplinary action was taken
based on two charges served on her as per Ext.P2 and
Ext.P30. The learned Single Judge uphled the contention of
the writ petitioner that no action could have been taken
against her based on Ext.P30. The allegations raised in
Ext.P30, supplementary charge served on the 1st respondent,
was that she filed a false and frivolous complaint before the
Kerala Women’s Commission against the 2nd appellant, who is
the President of the 1st appellant Society. Though the
allegations were considered by the Commission, she failed to
produce any convincing material to prove them. She has also
given wide publicity through the print media about the above
complaint and thereby defamed the 2nd appellant. Since she
has raised unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations against
W.A.No.1493/2009 2
the Society, action was proposed to be taken against her
misconduct and she was called upon to submit her reply to the
charge. The learned Single Judge referred to the report of the
Kerala Women’s Commission concerning the complaint of the
1st respondent and held that the allegations in Ext.P30 charge
are unfounded and unsustainable. The relevant portion of the
report has been extracted in the judgment under appeal.
2. On going through the said report, we are fully
convinced that Ext.P30 charge could not have been framed
against her. The learned Single Judge rightly set aside the said
charge. We fully agree with the reasons and conclusions of the
learned Single Judge. She was dismissed from service based on
two charges. Since one of them has been found to be
unsustainable, the dismissal order itself will fall to ground.
Therefore, that order was also set aside and the disciplinary
authority was directed to reconsider the matter. We find
nothing wrong with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. The disciplinary
authority of the 1st appellant may take a decision within four
weeks from today.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
ps