IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15239 of 2009(Y)
1. S.BAHULEYAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
... Respondent
2. THE PRESIDENT
3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :11/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 15239 OF 2009 (Y)
=====================
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard the counsel for the petitioner, Sri.B.Vinod who entered
appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and the learned
Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 3 and 4.
2. Petitioner was working as the Senior Branch Manager
of the Anchal Main Branch of the 1st respondent Bank. By Ext.P1
order dated 30/8/07, on the allegation of certain misconducts, he
was placed under suspension. In so far as this writ petition is
concerned, all that is relevant to notice is that the period of
suspension was extended for a period of six months w.e.f.30/8/08
by Ext.P9 order. The extended period expired on 28/2/2009.
Thereafter no prior approval of the Registrar has been obtained
for his continued suspension, as contemplated in Rule 198 of the
Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and on that basis, petitioner
seeks an order that he should be reinstated in service.
3. Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has no case that any
approval for the continued suspension of the petitioner beyond
28/2/2009 has been obtained. According to them, though they
WPC 15239/09
:2 :
have applied for such extension and the Joint Registrar has
recommended the same, no order has so far been passed on the
application made by them.
4. In view of the admitted fact that there is no prior
approval of the Registrar as contemplated in Rule 198 of the
Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules for keeping the petitioner
under suspension beyond 28/2/2009, his continuance in
suspension beyond that date is clearly illegal and therefore he has
to be reinstated in service.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st
respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service on the production
of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that this judgment shall
be without prejudice to the right of respondents 1 and 2 to
continue the disciplinary proceedings.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp