## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH**
**MONDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1940**
**WA.No. 737 of 2019**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 33815/2017 DATED 16-1-2019**
**of HIGH COURT**
## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:**
**EAST ELERI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, CHITTARIKKAL, CHITTARIKKAL P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**
**BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) KASARAGOD 671 123**
- **2 BINDUMOL.S, W/O RENEESH O.V, MAJEEDA QUARTERS, NEAR VINAYAKA THEATRE, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 123.**
**GP SMT.K.R.DEEPA**
**THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
W.A.No.737 of 2019
2
## **JUDGMENT**
## **Ravikumar, J.**
The judgment dated 16.1.2019 in W.P.(C)No.33815 of 2017 is under challenge in this appeal. The appellant was the petitioner in the said writ petition which was moved _inter alia,_ seeking quashment of Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is an order passed by the first respondent directing to reinstate the second respondent in service. The second respondent is a Senior Clerk attached to the appellant-bank. Alleging that she was unauthorisedly absent disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her under Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is dated 15.6.2013. The fact is that though disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the second respondent as per Ext.P1 dated 15.6.2013 so far the proceedings have not been concluded. The appellant society attributes non-co-operation from the part of the second respondent as the reason for non-finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings whereas, the second respondent attributes negligence and lapses on the part of the appellant bank for the same. Whatever be the reason for the delay, the fact is that feeling aggrieved by the inordinate delay in the matter of finalisation of disciplinary proceedings and the action in keeping her out of service even without placing her under suspension, the second respondent moved the Legislative Sub-committee for Women and Children. The complaint
W.A.No.737 of 2019
3
filed by her was forwarded for appropriate action to the first respondent. Subsequently, the first respondent passed Ext.P3. As per Ext.P3, it was directed to reinstate the second respondent in service without prejudice to the right of the Bank to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings already initiated, in accordance with law. It is feeling aggrieved by the said order that the above mentioned writ petition has been filed.
2. The first and second respondents filed separate counter affidavits. The learned Single Judge appreciated the rival pleadings and after hearing the learned counsel on both sides passed the impugned judgment. A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that on a detailed consideration of the provisions and also the factual position the learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that keeping an employee out of service for considerably long period and at the same time, delaying finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against such an employee, is a serious matter. Evidently, the learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that the first respondent Joint Registrar had not actually interfered with the disciplinary proceedings and this fact is reflected in the impugned Ext.P3 order itself. The first respondent made it very clear that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the second respondent could be continued in accordance with law. It is without prejudice to such right of the
W.A.No.737 of 2019
4
appellant and taking into account the fact that even without placing the second respondent under suspension from 15.6.2013 onwards she was being get out of service that Ext.P3 was issued. True that, the allegation levelled against the second respondent, as is evident from Ext.P1, is that she had remained unauthorisedly absent. That cannot be a reason for keeping her out of service that too, without placing her under suspension from 15.6.2013, for years together. Despite the lapse of more than half a decade the disciplinary proceedings have not reached the final stage. Evidently, it is taking into account all such aspects that Ext.P3 order was passed by the Joint Registrar. The learned Single Judge did not find any fault or error in Ext.P3 and therefore, virtually, confirmed the said order and consequently, dismissed the writ petition. It is aggrieved by the same that this appeal has been preferred.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned Government Pleader.
4. The core contention of the appellant is that the first respondent got no jurisdiction to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Co-operative Bank against its employee. To buttress the said contention the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on a Single Bench decision of this Court in **Kanjoor**
W.A.No.737 of 2019
5
## **Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.** v. **Joint Registrar of Co-operative**
**Societies (General)** reported in **2016 (3) KLT 73** . That was a case where against an employee employed on contract basis as a collection agent the Bank received certain complaints. The Managing Committee of the Co-operative Bank thereupon constituted Sub Committee for conducting an enquiry against him. After the culmination of the enquiry he was removed from service. Alleging that the procedure for removal as provided under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules were not adhered to, he approached the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Joint Registrar issued notice to the Bank to appear before him and to offer its explaination against the proposal to cancel its resolution whereby the said employee on contract basis was removed from service. It is in the said circumstances that the Cooperative Bank approached this Court. Evidently, this Court found that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies does not have any jurisdiction to consider the validity of the order of removal from service and the jurisdiction lies with the Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the said position.
5. The question is whether the decision in **Kanjoor Service Co-operative Bank's** case (supra) is applicable in the case on hand. As noticed hereinbefore, a bare perusal of Ext.P3 would reveal that the
W.A.No.737 of 2019
6
Joint Registrar did not interfere with the power of the appellant Bank to initiate disciplinary action against its employee, the second respondent. The second respondent is a Senior Clerk attached to the appellant Bank. The misconduct alleged against her, as per Annexure-A1, is that she was unauthorisedly absent. That apart, misbehaviour was also attributed. There is nothing on record which would reveal that pending disciplinary action she was placed under suspension. In such circumstances, the short question is whether pending disciplinary action in accordance with law can an employee be kept out of service without being placed under suspension? In the case on hand, admittedly, no order placing the second respondent under suspension was passed by the appellant Bank. Still, the fact is that from 15.6.2013 onwards she was not permitted to assume duty. As noticed hereinbefore, the appellant Bank attributes non-co-operation from the part of the second respondent as a reasoning for the delay in completion of the disciplinary proceedings and at the same time, the second respondent attributes laches and lapses from the part of the appellant Bank for the said delay. Whatever that be, the fact is that though there was no order of suspension, on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the second respondent is being kept out of service. When this undisputed and indisputable fact is available the question is whether interference by the first respondent in the matter and issuance of an order to
W.A.No.737 of 2019
7
reinstate the second respondent pending disciplinary action with liberty to continue with the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, can be taken as an action _ultra vires_ the powers under the Act and the Rules. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is having supervisory power. The supervisory power is vested with an authority to keep the subordinate authority within the bounds of law. When the subordinate authority is not acting in accordance with law, it is certainly within the power of the authority to bring the action of that authority within the bounds of law. In exercise of the said powers the first respondent has only directed the appellant Bank to proceed against the second respondent in accordance with law. No provision has been brought to our notice to keep an employee out of service without an order of suspension. True that, the power of the Managing Committee of the Bank to initiate disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with law, cannot be disputed. But, at the same time, it has to be initiated, continued and culminated in accordance with law. The action in keeping the second respondent out of service that too, without issuing an order of suspension, is not having any legal backing. Since the first respondent has exercised his power only to set right things and that too, without interfering with the jurisdiction of the appellant Bank to continue with the disciplinary proceedings already initiated against the second respondent, the
W.A.No.737 of 2019
8
learned Single Judge has found an interference unnecessary and unwarranted. We do not find any error in law or illegality, in the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge had only confirmed the lawful action on the part of the first respondent. In such circumstances, we are also of the view that the second respondent is liable to be reinstated and after reinstating her in service it would be open to the appellant Bank to continue with the disciplinary proceedings, if they are desirous to do so, in accordance with law. Needless to say that the second respondent is bound to co-operate with the disciplinary proceedings and in case she is not co-operating with the disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with law, the appellant Bank can proceed further, strictly, in accordance with law. With the said observation this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
**C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge** Sd/- **N.NAGARESH Judge**
TKS
