IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21997 of 2004(R)
1. THE PALGHAT CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
3. SMT.BALAMEENAKSHY,
4. SRI.P.G.RAMDAS,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.N.RAGHURAJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :04/06/2008
O R D E R
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.21997 of 2004-R
---------------------------------------
Dated, this the 4th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Respondents 3 and 4 are employees in the service of the
petitioner. The 3rd respondent claimed that she is senior to the 4th
respondent and is entitled to preferential promotion as the Secretary
of the Society. The petitioner-Bank, however, retained the 4th
respondent as Secretary-in-charge. Certain complaints were filed by
the 3rd respondent before the 2nd respondent alleging that she has
been harassed by threatened disciplinary proceedings. The 2nd
respondent, as per the impugned order, directed that she shall not be
harassed, but shall be permitted to do her duties and responsibilities.
The petitioner carried an appeal against that order to the Government.
That has been rejected. Hence this writ petition.
2. The 3rd respondent is not represented by counsel.
3. The 4th respondent, through counsel, stands only to
abide by the lawful directions of the petitioner, who is the employer.
4. A reading of the impugned orders would show that
they tend to stand in the way of any disciplinary action that the
petitioner may take against the 3rd respondent, even if they propose to
do so. That cannot be. But, at the same time, it has also to be noticed
WP(C).No.21997 of 2004 – 2 –
that if the 3rd respondent has any legitimate entitlement for preferential
treatment in the matter of promotion, that ought to have been
considered. Any way, continued retention of a person for years
together as one in-charge of the Secretary of an Urban Co-operative
Society is not what is contemplated within the frame work of the
Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules.
5. Having found that the impugned orders tend to
impinge upon the petitioner to initiate any disciplinary proceedings in
accordance with law, those orders are quashed, however, clarifying
that the mere quashing of those orders shall not form the foundation to
initiate any proceedings against the 3rd respondent unless there are
grounds to do so on specific counts of indiscipline.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Judge
vku/-