High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; directions issued for he...
Mathew Joseph v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Puduppadi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (No.F1830), represented by its Secretary, and The President, Puduppadi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (No.F1830)
Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Devan Ramachandran
- Judgment Date
- 2022-08-26
- Court Decision / Holding
- This writ petition is ordered. The court holds that the earlier disciplinary action was invalid and could not continue; the management may initiate fresh disciplinary action, provided proper procedure is followed. It directs the Managing Committee to hear the petitioner and decide the claim for arrears for the period prior to Ext.P14, considering all inputs and documents, and to determine any due benefits, including subsistence allowance, within two months of receiving a copy of the judgment; if due, such benefits must be released within one month thereafter. The court also directs that the disciplinary action now initiated via Ext.P15 must be completed without delay, with an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Subsistence allowance, if applicable, must be paid during suspension, and if any deficiency arises, the petitioner may approach the Court again.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition allowed; directions issued for hearing and decision on arrears; subsistence allowance to be paid; disciplinary action to be completed within four months; no automatic reinstatement mandated.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- MATHEW JOSEPH
Respondents
- The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Jawahar Saha karana Bhavan, DPI Junction, Thiruvananthapuram-695014
- The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kozhikkode, Puthiyara P.O., Kozhikode district-673004
- The Puduppadi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.F1830, Puduppadi P.O., Kozhikode district-673586, represented by its Secretary
- The President, The Puduppadi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.F1830, Puduppadi P.O., Kozhikode district-673586
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • George Poonthottam (Sr.)
- • J. Vishnu
- • A. L. Navaneeth Krishnan
- • Anshin K.K
- • Chithra P.
- • P. George
- • Nisha George
Counsels for Respondents
- • M. Sasindran
- • Smt Parvathy K.
Case Synopsis & Summary
Mathew Joseph’s writ petition challenges Ext.P15, a charge memo issued by the Puduppadi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (the Society), on grounds that it was illegal, issued beyond competence, and aimed at harassment. The petitioner explains that while employed, he took long leave to join his family in Australia, and an accident prevented returning within the allowed time. This led to disciplinary action; the Joint Registrar set aside the initial proceedings (Ext.P7), and the Arbitration Court via Ext.P14 ordered remand for fresh action. The petitioner contends that the entire prior disciplinary action was invalid, as outlined in Ext.P14, and thus Ext.P15 was issued unlawfully, while he remained suspended without benefits from 13.04.2015. The respondent bank argues that the Arbitration Court’s remand permits fresh action, and that automatic reinstatement or payment of benefits cannot follow; Ext.P15 is issued within the liberty reserved by the Arbitration Court. The Court recognizes two issues: (i) whether Ext.P15 should stand and reinstatement is warranted, and (ii) arrears from 03.11.2014. However, the Court holds that the prior action was invalid and that fresh action is permissible; it directs the Society to hear the petitioner and decide arrears, ensure subsistence allowance, and complete the disciplinary process within four months, with no automatic reinstatement mandated.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that Ext.P15 is illegal and issued by an incompetent authority following an arbitrator’s remand. He asserts that the earlier disciplinary proceedings were declared invalid by the Arbitration Court (Ext.P14) and that although he had tried to rejoin on 03.11.2014, he was denied opportunity. Consequently, he argues entitlement to monetary arrears from 03.11.2014 (not merely from the date of the initial suspension) and seeks reinstatement. He emphasizes due process and cooperation with a fresh, properly conducted inquiry, alleging harassment and violation of his rights. He further requests that the Court direct payment of subsistence allowances during suspension and ensure timely resolution of the arrears if found due.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend that the Arbitration Court remanded the matter for fresh action, and that automatic reinstatement or payment of benefits cannot follow a remand. They argue Ext.P15 was issued within the liberty reserved by Ext.P14 and that the petitioner’s allegations are grave, justifying a fresh, properly conducted disciplinary inquiry. They maintain that the petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P15 on this basis, and urge dismissal of the petition. They submit the relevant period for arrears remains unresolved pending fresh action and that due process must be observed in compliance with the statutory framework for disciplinary action.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joshy Varghese | 2020(4) KLT 129 | Positive | Relied upon to emphasize that liberty reserved for management allows for fresh action rather than automatic reinstatement after a prior invalid disciplinary action. |
| WP(C) NO. 20282/2015 | — | Mentioned Only | Judgment of this Court cited in Exhibit P11 for context; not expressly discussed or applied as a proposition in the current decision. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Mathew Joseph v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Puduppadi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (No.F1830), represented by its Secretary, and The President, Puduppadi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (No.F1830) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944**
## **WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021**
## **PETITIONER:**
MATHEW JOSEPH AGED 45 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, GANAPATHYPLAKKAL HOUSE, KUPPAYAKODU P.O., KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT-673580. BY ADVS. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) J.VISHNU A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN ANSHIN K.K CHITHRA P.GEORGE NISHA GEORGE
## **RESPONDENTS:**
1 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. 2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOZHIKODE, PUTHIYARA P.O., KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT-673004. 3 THE PUDUPPADI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F1830, PUDUPPADI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673586, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4 THE PRESIDENT, THE PUDUPPADI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. F1830, PUDUPPADI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673586. BY ADV M.SASINDRAN SC SMT PARVATHY K-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
**WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021**
**2**
## **JUDGMENT**
The petitioner impugns Ext.P15
proceedings issued by the 3[rd] respondent –
Service Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as “Society” for short), on various grounds, but primarily, that it is an illegal action, initiated without competence and intended to harass and victimize him.
2. Sri.A.L.Navaneeth Krishnan – learned
counsel for the petitioner, explained that,
while his client was working in the services of the Society, he took long leave to join his family at Australia, but that before returning, he met with an accident, thus being unable to rejoin duty within the time granted to him. He says that this led
**WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021**
**3**
to a disciplinary action against his client, though he wanted to rejoin duty; which was, however, set aside by the Joint Registrar, through Ext.P7, which then led to a second enquiry being initiated, which was also, however, set aside by the Arbitration Court through Ext.P14 order.
3. The petitioner asserts that, as is evident from Ext.P14, the entire disciplinary action was found to be “invalid”; but that the Society, thereupon, issued Ext.P15 Charge Memo to him on
19.08.2021 and then again placed him under
suspension, however, without granting him any benefits during the period of his initial suspension from 13.04.2015.
4. The petitioner contends that since
**WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021**
**4**
he had attempted to rejoin duty with the Society on 03.11.2014, but denied such opportunity, he is entitled to the monetary benefits from that date and not merely from the date of his initial suspension. He thus prayed that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted.
5. In response, Sri.M.Sasindran –
learned counsel for the respondent, initially sought time to file counter pleadings, but argued that the Arbitration Court, vide Ext.P14, has remanded the matter to the management of the Society for fresh action. He submitted that law has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, through various judgments, that when a matter is remanded to the management
**WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021**
**5**
for fresh consideration, automatic reinstatement or payment of benefits cannot follow. He then argued that his client is only acting as per the liberty reserved to them in Ext.P14 order by the Arbitration Court and that since the allegations against the petitioner are very grave, they found it necessary that he be proceeded against properly, which led to Ext.P15 Charge Memo being issued. He argued that petitioner cannot assail Ext.P15 since it has been issued validly by his client based on the liberty reserved by the Arbitration Court and; thus prayed that this writ
petition be dismissed.
6. The afore rival contentions being recorded, it is perspicuous that there are
**WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021**
**6**
two limbs in the claims of the petitioner: namely, (a) that Ext.P15 be set aside and he be ordered to be reinstated in service,pursuant to Ext.P14 order of the Arbitration Court; and (b) that monetary benefits from 03.11.2014 be ordered to be paid to him by the Society.
7. On the first of the afore limbs of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, I
am afraid that I cannot find favour with him because, as rightly argued by Sri.M.Sasindran, though the earlier
proceedings against him was found to be
incompetent and invalid by the Arbitration Court - based on the declaration of a learned Division Bench of this Court in
**Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.**
**WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021**
**7**
**v. Joshy Varghese** [2020(4) KLT 129] - liberty was certainly reserved to them to initiate fresh action, if they were so interested. When the Society acted within the ambit of such liberty reserved to them, I cannot see how the petitioner can challenge against Ext.P15; and am certain that he must co-operate with the enquiry, so that it can be concluded without any further delay. 8. That being said, as regards the benefits claimed by the petitioner for the period from 03.11.2014 are concerned, I notice that Society has never considered or acceded to it, nor have they rejected it in any manner until now. True, the petitioner did not approach them for the benefits, but
**WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021**
**8**
he has sought the prayers in this writ petition, hinged on Ext.P14 order of the
Arbitration Court.
9. When one examines Ext.P14 order, as
rightly argued by Sri.A.L.Navaneeth
Krishnan – learned counsel for the
petitioner, the entire disciplinary action was found to be “invalid”, since the Charge Memo itself was found to have been issued by an incompetent Authority. The law is well settled, without requirement for restatement, that a disciplinary action begins with the Charge Memo; and hence, when the said Memo itself is found to be invalid, then the edifice falls and the disciplinary action will be construed to be non est.
## **WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021**
**9**
10. In that perspective, it is
indubitable that the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner earlier cannot be allowed to continue and that the Management could have only initiated fresh action, following the statutory procedure.
11.However, the argument of
Sri.M.Sasindran is on the basis of the words
“remanded” used by the Arbitration Court in Ext.P14 and he contends that this means that same process has been sent back to the Society for being continued. I am afraid that this argument can never find favour because the findings in Ext.P14 is explicit that the earlier disciplinary action has been found to be “invalid”, but with liberty being reserved to the Management to initiate
**WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021**
**10**
fresh action.
12. Therefore, merely because the
Arbitration Court has wrongly used the word
“remanded” in Ext.P14, it does not mean
that it is the same disciplinary action
which has been sent back to the Society for being pursued, particularity when it has already been declared to be invalid by it. To add to this, even after using the word “remand” in Ext.P14 order, the Arbitration Court left to the Management to make “fresh consideration”, however, “only if
necessary”. It is, therefore, ineluctable
that what the Arbitration Court did was to
set aside the earlier disciplinary proceedings and to allow the Management to take fresh action, if they were so
**WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021**
**11**
interested.
13. In the afore scenario, I am certain
that the Managing Committee of the Society must hear the petitioner and take a decision on the claim for arrears of salary
for the period prior to Ext.P14, taking
note of all relevant and germane inputs and
documents, adverting to the contention that
he was deliberately kept out of service after 03.11.2014, even though he was
willing to rejoin.
14. A decision as afore shall be taken
by the Management, as expeditiously as is
possible, but not later than two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment; and all benefits, if found due after such exercise, shall be released to
**WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021**
**12**
the petitioner within a period of one month
thereafter.
15. At this time, Sri.A.L.Navaneeth
Krishnan, intervened to request that the subsistence allowance, pursuant to Ext.P15, also be directed to be paid by the Society to him.
16. Needless to say, since the Society
maintains that petitioner has now been placed under suspension, he will be entitled to eligible subsistence allowance, which shall, certainly be paid by them and if there is any failure to do so, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court again seeking appropriate reliefs.
17. I also deem it necessary that the
**WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021**
**13**
disciplinary action, now initiated through Ext.P15, be ordered to be completed by the Society without any delay. I, therefore, additionally order that said process shall be completed within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
**DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN**
**JUDGE**
SAS
**WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021**
**14**
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22728/2021**
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
|Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL SENT BY THE|
|---|---|
||PETITIONER FROM AUSTRALIA TO THE SECRETARY|
||OF THE BANK DATED 6.3.2014.|
|Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED|
||BY THE CHAIRMAN OF DISCIPLINARY SUB-|
||COMMITTEE, ATTACHED AND SENT VIA EMAIL,|
||DATED 12.9.2014.|
|Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE SHOW-CAUSE|
||NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED|
||15.9.2014.|
|Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO ISSUED BY THE|
||CHAIRMAN OF THE DISCIPLINARY SUB-COMMITTEE|
||DATED 18.10.2014.|
|Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST TO RE-JOIN|
||SERVICE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED|
||3.11.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.|
|Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE FLIGHT TICKET RECEIVED ON|
||15.7.2014 ALONG WITH CERTIFICATE OF|
||INSURANCE.|
|Exhibit P6(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED|
||6.8.2014.|
|Exhibit P6(B)|TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED|
||17.9.2014.|
|Exhibit P6(C)|TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED|
||16.10.2014.|
|Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.R.P.|
||(1)/7559/14(1) DATED 4.4.2015 ISSUED BY|
||THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH|
||TRANSLATION.|
**WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021**
**15**
|Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE|
|---|---|
||PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY, DATED 13.4.2015,|
||SUSPENDING THE PETITIONER PENDING ENQUIRY,|
||WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.|
|Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO ISSUED BY THE|
||CHAIRMAN OF THE DISCIPLINARY SUB-|
||COMMITTEE, DATED 13.5.2015.|
|Exhibit P10|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE|
||PETITIONER DATED 20.5.2015 OF EXHIBIT P9|
||CHARGE MEMO.|
|Exhibit P11|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE|
||COURT IN WP(C) NO.20282/2015 DATED|
||7.7.2015.|
|Exhibit P12|TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER ISSUED BY|
||THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DISCIPLINARY SUB|
||COMMITTEE DATED 11.4.2016.|
|Exhibit P13|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE|
||MANAGING COMMITTEE DISMISSING THE|
||PETITIONER'S APPEAL WITH COVERING LETTER|
||DATED 13.8.2016 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.|
|Exhibit P14|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ARC.NO.94/2016|
||DATED 16.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE|
||ARBITRATION COURT (NORTHERN), KOZHIKODE.|
|Exhibit P15|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE|
||PRESIDENT OF THE BANK SUSPENDING THE|
||PETITIONER AND CONTAINING CHARGE MEMO|
||AGAINST THE PETITIONER, DATED 19.8.2021|
||WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.|
|Exhibit P16|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE THIRD CHARGE|
||MEMO SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED|
||7.9.2021 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.|
|Exhibit P17|TRUE COPY OF THE NON EMPLOYMENT|
||CERTIFICATE/AFFIDAVIT DATED 24/12/2021|
||SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER|
**WP(C) NO. 22728 OF 2021**
**16**
|Exhibit P18|TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED|
|---|---|
||22.12.2021 IN W.P.(C) NO.22728/2021 PASSED|
||BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.|
|Exhibit P19|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED|
||07.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE|
||BANK TO THE PETITIONER.|
|Exhibit P20|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED|
||09.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE|
||PRESIDENT OF THE BANK.|
|PETITIONER EXHIBITS||
|Exhibit P21|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.4144|
||OF 2022 DATED 11-03-2022 PASSED BY THIS|
||HON'BLE COURT.|
|Exhibit P22|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07-06-2022|
||IN WA NO.427 OF 2022 PASSED BY THIS|
||HON'BLE COURT.|
|Exhibit P23|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20-07-2022|
||ISSUED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER TO THE|
||PETITIONER.|
|RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS||
|Exhibit R3 A|A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT, AFTER|
||DOMESTIC ENQUIRY AGAINST THE APPLICANT.|
||//TRUE COPY//|
||P.A. TO JUDGE|