Dhanya R.C v. Board of Directors of ITTIVA Agricultural Improvement Co-Operative Society Ltd and ITTIVA Agricultural Improvement Co-Operative Society Ltd

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI &** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI** **MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1945** ## **WA NO. 667 OF 2023** ## **WP(C) 4216/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/S:** DHANYA R.C,AGED 42 YEARS W/O. SAJU V.R, RESIDING AT UTHRADAM, AYIRAKKUZHI P.O., KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, (SECRETARY UNDER SUSPENSION), ITTIVA AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO. Q.1553, MANNOOR P.O., CHANNAPETTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691559 BY ADVS.P.N.MOHANAN C.P.SABARI/AMRUTHA SURESH/GILROY ROZARIO ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ITTIVA AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, NO. Q.1553 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MANNOOR P.O., CHANNAPETTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691311 2 ITTIVA AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,NO.Q.1553 ,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY IN CHARGE MANNOOR P.O., CHANNAPETTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 691311 BY ADV T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WA NO. 667 OF 2023** -2- ## **S.V.BHATTI & BASANT BALAJI, JJ.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - ## **WA NO. 667 OF 2023** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## JUDGMENT (Dated this the 3[rd] day of April 2023) ## Basant Balaji J., The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4216 of 2023 is the appellant. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, did not allow reinstatement in service but regarding the monetary benefits it was held that the petitioner being under suspension will be entitled for eligible subsistence allowance. 2. The Writ Petition was filed for the following ## reliefs; - 1.issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or appropriate - direction directing the first and second respondents to reinstate the **WA NO. 667 OF 2023** -3- petitioner in service forthwith and to grant salary and all other benefits from 11.07.2022. - 2.declare that petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service and to grant monitory benefits from 11.07.2022 as the memo of are charges - withdrawn. - 3.for a direction to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents. 3. The petitioner joined the service of the 2[nd] respondent as peon on 1.12.2014 and was directly appointed as Secretary with effect from 26.11.2016 as she cleared the examinations conducted for the post of Secretary by Co-operative Service Examination Board. The petitioner was suspended from service by order dated 11.07.2022 and the convener of sub committee issued a memo of charges on 11.8.2022 to which the petitioner submitted a reply on 22.8.2022 refuting the charges. An **WA NO. 667 OF 2023** -4- enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer based on Ext.P3 memo of charges and submitted a report. On the basis of enquiry, the first respondent issued a show cause notice calling for explanation as to why punishment of compulsory retirement should not be passed against her. Ext.P3 memo of charges was challenged in W.P.(C) No.123 of 2023 on the ground that it is issued by an incompetent authority and therefore, liable to be set aside. Pending the Writ Petition, the respondents withdrew memo of charges against the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law. Therefore, this court disposed of W.P.(C) No.123 of 2023 permitting to withdraw the present case without prejudice to the right of proceeding afresh. 4. The contention raised in the Writ Petition is that consequence of the withdrawal of memo of charges, the **WA NO. 667 OF 2023** -5- suspension order would automatically get vacated and therefore, she has to be reinstated back. Therefore she filed a petition dated 31.1.2023 with a prayer to reinstate her back in service with consequential benefits. With these allegations, she approached this court praying that she is entitled to be reinstated in service and to grant monetary benefits from 11.7.2022 as the memo of charges are withdrawn. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition holding that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. 5. Heard the counsel, Shri. P. N. Mohanan for the appellant and Shri. T. R. Harikumar for respondents. 6. The counsel for the appellant argues that since the memo of charges is withdrawn, Ext.P2 suspension order has no independent existence and therefore, she should have been reinstated forthwith. Counsel also relied on a **WA NO. 667 OF 2023** -6- judgment of this court in **Mathew joseph v. Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and others [ILR 2022(4) Kerala** . **555]** 7. The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the earlier proceedings were withdrawn as there was technicality and reserving right to proceed afresh and, the memo of charges was withdrawn. 8. The memo of charges was withdrawn by the society as it was understood that there was procedure infirmity in initiating charges by an incompetent authority. The learned Single Judge has distinguished the judgment mentioned above holding that the finding of earlier disciplinary proceedings initiated a fresh order of suspension was issued. It was in the said circumstances, it was held that the employee shall be deemed to have been **WA NO. 667 OF 2023** -7- in service prior to the second order of suspension. 9. In **Mathew (supra)** this court held that suspension order cannot exist independent of a charge because in that case the Co - operative Arbitration Court invalidated the entire disciplinary proceedings including the charge memo. Turning to the facts of this case, it is seen that the charge memo alone was withdrawn by the respondents and were given liberty to proceed afresh. The disciplinary proceedings were never interfered with by this court. So the dictum laid in **Mathew (supra)** has no applications to the facts of this case. 10. The counsel for the respondents submits that a new memo of charges is already issued and that the enquiry would be completed from 3 weeks from today. Recording the said submission, we are of the considered opinion that it **WA NO. 667 OF 2023** -8- is a not a fit case to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and direct reinstatement. In the facts and circumstance of the case, we deem it proper that a direction can be issued to complete disciplinary proceedings within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Accordingly, we do so. Dismissed with the above observations. **Sd/-** **S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE** **sd/BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE** _dl/_