IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19790 of 2008(E)
1. M.K.BHANUDEVAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANTHUKA GOVERNMENT SERVANTS
... Respondent
2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
4. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :01/07/2008
O R D E R
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
==================================
W.P.(C)No.19790 of 2008
==================================
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a former President of the first
respondent Co-operative Bank. It was alleged that
the petitioner, while the President, abused his
official position and mis-appropriated amounts by
encashing 17 Kisan Vikas Patras with the help of
one Sri.P.T.Mathai, who was the Secretary of the
Bank at the relevant time. The Bank initiated
arbitration proceedings and obtained an award
against the petitioner. He filed a revision
against the award before the Kerala Co-operative
Tribunal. That was dismissed as per Ext.P2 on 16-
9-2002. In 2007, he challenged that revisional
order and filed W.P.(C)No.31592 of 2007. That was
dismissed as per Ext.P3 judgment noticing that
there was inordinate delay in challenging the
decision of the Tribunal. However, the concluded
WPC19790/08
-:2:-
findings regarding the abuse of Kisan Vikas Patras
was also noticed.
2. This writ petition is filed again
challenging Ext.P2 decision of the Tribunal, which,
as already noticed, was issued wayback on 16-9-
2002. The ground pleaded is that there was also a
vigilance case and that has resulted in acquittal,
which, according to the petitioner, is an
honourable one. The dichotomy of the proceedings
before the Arbitrator and before the vigilance
court has always to be kept in mind. The mere
acquittal in criminal cases, even if it be one
which clears the accused of blemish, cannot be a
foundation for re-opening the proceedings for
recovery of money which have become final by the
force of Ext.P2 decision on the revision petition
and Ext.P3 judgment in the writ petition. Though
the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
WPC19790/08
-:3:-
a petition to review Ext.P2 revisional order of the
Tribunal is filed, I am not expressing anything on
merits or even the impact of Ext.P3 judgment on
such review petition. However, I am clear in my
mind that the Arbitrator, having concluded that the
first respondent is entitled to recovery of certain
amounts from the petitioner and that having been
confirmed by the Tribunal in Ext.P2 order, which
action stands affirmed by Ext.P3 judgment of this
Court, no interference is called for in any manner
re-opening those proceedings, that too, in this
writ petition.
This writ petition is hence dismissed in
limine.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
Judge.
sl.