Chenkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) & R. N. Rajan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 29331 of 2013 (N)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------------------** **CHENKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1258, CHENKAL, CHENKAL.P.O, PIN-695 132, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHEELA DEVI.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.L.VENU KUMAR DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN** **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------------------** **1. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 134.** ## **2. R.N.RAJAN,** **S/O.NESAMANI.P, R.S.BHAVAN, VLATHANKARA, CHENKAL.P.O, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 134.** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-12-2013 ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 19797/2013,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **WP(C).No. 29331 of 2013 (N)** **-----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **---------------------------------------** **EXT.P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOMESTIC ENQUIRY REPORT AGAINST THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03-02-2009.** **EXT.P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PART-TIME ADMINISTRATOR DATED 27-02-2009.** **EXT.P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 5-5-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND T.RETNAKUMARI BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SUB COMMITTE.** **EXT.P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20-05-2010 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SUB COMMITTEE CONTAINING THE DECISION OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE.** **EXT.P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPYT OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10-04-2013 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 16-04-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY.** **EXT.P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOY OF THE REQUEST DATED 30-10-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **------------------------------------------N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).Nos. 29331 & 19797 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 10[th] December, 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **JUDGMENT** Both the writ petitions are filed on the same set of facts and the common challenge is against the order of the Assistant Registrar (G) bearing No.Parassala 429/13 dated 10.4.2013 which is produced as Ext.P14 in W.P.(C).19797/2013. W.P.(C).19797/2013 is filed by an employee of the Chenkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, which employer is the 1[st] petitioner in W.P.(C).29331/2013. 2. The short facts for the disposal of these writ petitions is that the petitioner in W.P.(C).19797/2013, while he was working as Cashier in the respondent/Bank was issued with a show cause notice dated 10.3.2008 exhibited as Ext.P2. The petitioner was also suspended as per Ext.P3 and a charge sheet was issued as is evidenced by Ext.P4. While the enquiry was proceeded with, the petitioner filed an application before the Joint Registrar (G) **WP(C).29331 & 19797/13** 2 challenging the proceedings as also the suspension and the Joint Registrar directed the Assistant Registrar (G) to conduct enquiry into the same. By Ext.P5, the Assistant Registrar filed a report before the Joint Registrar finding that the petitioner can be taken back to the service of the Bank by cancelling the suspension and that there would be no prejudice caused to the enquiry proceeded with by the Bank. The petitioner hence was reinstated as per Ext.P6. Later on, on the report of the Enquiry Officer, Ext.P8 order was passed imposing a punishment of “warning” to the petitioner. Ext.P8 order was passed by the Administrator who was in charge of the aforesaid Society. 3. Subsequently, the Managing Committee came into power, after a duly conducted election. Immediately thereafter, Ext.P9 show cause notice came to be issued on the same set of facts. The Sub Committee also issued Ext.P10 dated 20.5.2010 by which the petitioner was reverted to the post of Junior Clerk. Ext.P10 was not **WP(C).29331 & 19797/13** 3 challenged by the petitioner. While the learned counsel for the employee asserts that an appeal was filed on the very next day ie., 21.5.2010, the learned counsel appearing for the Society has pointed out a specific averment in paragraph 7 of the writ petition wherein the employee contended that due to financial difficulties, he did not challenge Ext.P10. 4. Be that as it may, Ext.P10 has attained finality and even the writ petition does not raise a challenge against Ext.P10. The grievance of the employee projected in the present writ petition is with respect to the denial of promotion. The employee's claim is that even if the reversion is accepted he would be the senior most in the reverted post and then he would be entitled to be first considered in the next arising vacancy in the higher post. In any event, he did not avail of the statutory remedy provided under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969 (for short 'the Act') but again, sought relief before the Joint Registrar (G). The **WP(C).29331 & 19797/13** 4 Joint Registrar passed Ext.P14 order which is challenged by the Society and sought to be implemented by the employee. 5. Ext.P14 finds that there is no period prescribed for the reversion and hence the period for reversion is only for six months and also relies on the earlier order passed by the Administrator imposing a punishment of “warning” to find that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted. In fact, both the said findings are erroneous. If no period has been prescribed, since there is no contrary stipulation in the Act or Rules, necessarily, the reversion would continue until the petitioner becomes eligible to be considered for promotion. The prescription of six moths is at best, the personal opinion of the Assistant Registrar (G), and cannot be taken as a prescription of law, especially in the circumstances of this Court having not been shown, any prescription to that end, in either the Co-operative Societies Act or Rules. **WP(C).29331 & 19797/13** 5 6. The reliance placed on the earlier punishment of “warning” also according to this Court, cannot be sustained at this point of time, since the reversion was in the year 2010 and the petitioner had willingly accepted the same without demur. The learned counsel for the Society also brought to the notice of this Court a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in **Raveendran v. State of Kerala (2007 (3) KLT 558)** wherein this Court found that the disputes relating to promotion and inter se seniority have to be decided by the Arbitration Court and not by the Joint Registrar or by the Government. Going by the binding precedent as also the findings of this Court with respect to Ext.P14 order, the said order is not liable to be upheld. Ext.P5 in W.P.(C).29331/2013 is set aside as being illegal. In the context of Ext.P5 order having been set aside, nothing survives in W.P.(C).19797/2013 since it seeks implementation of that order which has been set aside by this Court. Needless to say, the employee shall be entitled to seek remedies under Section 69 of the Act, in accordance with law. This **WP(C).29331 & 19797/13** 6 Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the claim raised by the petitioner. W.P.(C).29331/2013, hence stands allowed and W.P.(C). 19797/2013 stands dismissed. Parties are left to suffer their costs. **Sd/-** **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge** Mrcs