Chendamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd & The Disciplinary Sub-Committee, Chendamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v Bindut, M. D. Raghu, The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Ernakulam

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV ``` ``` & ``` ``` THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEP.M.MANOJ ``` ``` MONDAY,THE25[TH]DAYOFMARCH2024/5THCHAITHRA,1946 ``` ``` WANO.442OF2024 ``` ``` AGAINSTTHEORDERDATED15.03.2024INWP(C)NO.8354OF2023OF HIGHCOURTOFKERALA ``` ## **`APPELLANTS:`** ``` 1THECHENDAMANGALAMSERVICECO-OPERATIVEBANKLTD132 CHENDAMANGALAMP.O,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT. REPRESENTEDBYITSSECRETARY-IN-CHARGE,PIN-683512 ``` ``` 2THEDISCIPLINARYSUB-COMMITTEE CHENDAMANGALAMSERVICECO-OPERATIVEBANKLTD132, CHENDAMANGALAMP.O,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT. REPRESENTEDBYITSCHAIRMAN,PIN-683512 ``` ``` BYADVS. P.N.MOHANAN ANOOPV.NAIR C.P.SABARI AMRUTHASURESH GILROYROZARIO ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1BINDUT AGED50YEARS ``` ``` W/O.P.UNNIKRISHNANKARUNALAYAM,V.KCOLONYTHEVAKKAL, COCHINSECRETARY(UNDERORDEROFSUSPENSION) CHENDHAMANGALAMSERVICECO-OPERATIVEBANKLTD-132 CHENDAMANGALAMP.O,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,PIN-682021 ``` W.A.No.442 of 2024 2 ``` 2M.D.RAGHU ENQUIRYOFFICER,CHENDAMANGALAMSERVICECO-OPERATIVEBANK LTD132,CHENDAMANGALAMP.O,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT. RESIDINGATMAVUMKUTTATHHOUSE,KOTTUVALLI,N.PARAVOOR ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,PIN-683512 ``` - **`3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) ERNAKULAM KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 030.`** ``` BYADVM.SASINDRAN ``` ``` SRI.SAIGIJACOBPALATTY,SR.GP. ``` ``` THISWRITAPPEALHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 25.03.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` W.A.No.442 of 2024 3 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.** This intra-court appeal is preferred by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 challenging the interim order dated 15.03.2024 in W.P.(C.) No. 8354/2023. By the aforesaid interim order, the learned Single Judge took note of the order dated 07.11.2022 issued by the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Ernakulam, and also the provisions of Rule 198(6) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (for short, the ‘KCS Rules’) and ordered the reinstatement of the 1st respondent as the period of suspension exceeded one year. 2. Sri. P.N. Mohanan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the 1st respondent was suspended from service on 07.11.2022 for commission of various misconducts. The order of suspension was challenged before this Court and the petition was disposed of by judgment dated 14.12.2022 ordering the society to conclude the enquiry within a period of three months. It is stated that for one reason or W.A.No.442 of 2024 4 another, the 1st respondent has managed to protract the enquiry and she has not even submitted any reply to Ext.P3 memo of charges. It is stated that a sub-committee was constituted to initiate disciplinary action against the first respondent and Ext.P3 memo of charges was issued on 01.02.2023. The said order was challenged on the sole premise that the Chairman of the sub-committee was not the competent authority in the light of the law laid down in **Kodenchery Service Co-operative Bank[1]** . Sri. P.N. Mohanan, the learned counsel submits that the law laid down in **Kodenchery** (supra) was overruled by the Full Bench of this Court in **Mattannur Rural Bank[2]** wherein, it was held that the disciplinary sub-committee constituted in terms of Sub-rule (2A) of Rule 198 of the KCS Rules is competent to issue the memo of charges. It is submitted by the learned counsel that an interim order was granted by the learned Single Judge by order dated 10.03.2023 and in view of the interim order, that stayed all proceedings, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 1st respondent could not proceeded with and be concluded. It is stated that in the meantime, an interlocutory application was filed by the > 1 Kodenchery Service Co-operative Bank v. Joshy Varghese [2020 (4) KLT 129 DB] > 2 Mattannur Rural Bank v. Arbitration Court [2023 (3) KLJ 762] W.A.No.442 of 2024 5 1st respondent producing a copy of the order passed by the Joint Registrar, and the same was accepted by the learned Single Judge and the impugned order was passed. Sri. P.N. Mohanan, the learned counsel submits that challenging the request made by the committee to extend the period of enquiry, Annexure A1 appeal has been preferred and the same is pending before the Government. It is submitted that if the impugned order stands allowed, it would send a wrong signal to the other employees. According to the learned counsel, there were no pleadings in the writ petition warranting the exercise of powers by the learned Single Judge to issue an order in the nature of the order issued. It is further submitted that the enquiry could not be concluded due to the non-cooperation of the 1st respondent and that is yet another reason as to why the impugned order cannot be sustained. 3. In response, Sri M. Sasindran, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the writ petition was actually filed on 09.03.2023 assailing the disciplinary proceedings. An interim order was granted by this Court on 10.03.2023 and the same is still in force. According to the learned counsel, the suspension was on 07.11.2022 and W.A.No.442 of 2024 6 the one-year period as prescribed under Rule 198(6) of the KCS Rules had expired on 06.11.2023. It is after taking note of the aforesaid aspects and the statutory provision that the Joint Registrar has passed Ext. P16 order on 17.11.2023. According to the learned counsel, Rule 198(6) of the KCS Rules, clearly stipulates that in no case employees shall be kept under suspension for a continuous period exceeding one year without the prior approval of the Registrar. It is submitted that instead of moving the learned Single Judge to expedite the hearing of the matter, the order, passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be assailed as the same is in order. 4. Sri. Saigi Palatty, the learned Government Pleader also pointed out that Ext.P16 order has been passed in strict adherence to Rule 198(6) of the KCS Rules, and in that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent as well as the learned Senior W.A.No.442 of 2024 7 Government Pleader. 6. We find that the learned Single Judge while ordering reinstatement took note of Ext.P16 order passed by the Joint Registrar and has also considered the incontrovertible fact that the first respondent was kept under suspension for more than one year. As the order passed by the learned Single Judge, was after adverting to all the relevant facts as well as statutory provisions, we do not think that any interference is warranted in the facts and circumstances. 7. As rightly submitted by Sri. P.N. Mohanan, the learned counsel for the appellants, the Full Bench of this Court in **Mattanur** (supra) has taken the view that the framing of charge by the sub-committee is in order. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it is for the petitioner to raise their contentions before the learned Single Judge and seek expeditious hearing of the matter. We are certain that if any such request is made, the learned Single Judge would oblige and grant the petitioner an early hearing of the matter. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances, we do not find W.A.No.442 of 2024 8 any reason whatsoever to interfere with the ad-interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. This writ appeal is dismissed. sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** sd/- **MANOJ. P.M. JUDGE** DCS W.A.No.442 of 2024 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF WA 442/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` AnnexureA1 ``` ``` TRUECOPYOFTHEAPPEALDATED04.01.2024 ```