OP(C) No.1169/2012 & W.P.(C) No.9935/2014 (Common Judgment)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1943 OP(C) NO. 1169 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RP 142/2010 OF KERALA COOP.TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31.8.2011** ## **PETITIONER/S:** ADICHANALLOOR FARMERS SERVICE LTD. NO. 2609,ADICHANALLOOR.P.O.,KOLLAM DISTRICT, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR IN CHARGE. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SHARAN SRI.A.D.SHAJAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.SOCIETIES (GENERAL) KOLLAM-691001. 2 G. SREEDHARAN PILLAI (RTD. SENIOR CLERK), BRANCH MANAGER IN CHARGE, KOTTIYAM BRANCH, RESIDING AT SREEPADAM, VELICHIKKALA.P.O., ADICHANALLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.LEO GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.06.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).9935/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 9935 OF 2014** ## **PETITIONER/S:** G. SREEDHARAN PILLAI S/O.GOPINATHAN PILLAI, SREEPADMAM, VELICHIKKALA P.O., ADICHANALLOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 573. BY ADVS. SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.T.T.RAKESH ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KOLLAM- 691 001. 2 ADICHANALLOOR FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 691 001 ADICHANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR IN CHARGE. BY ADVS. R2 SMT.S.SINDHU R2 SRI.S.SHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.06.2021, ALONG WITH OP(C).1169/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 3 ## COMMON JUDGEMENT Dated, this the 18[th] day of June, 2021 [O.P.(C) No.1169 of 2012 and W.P.(C) No.9935 of 2014] OP(C) No.1169/2012 is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is filed by a Co-operative Bank named Adichanalloor Farmers' Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. No. 2609, Adichanalloor (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') with the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies as the first respondent and G. Sreedharan Pillai, a retired Senior Clerk of the Bank's Kottiyam branch, as the second respondent. In this petition, the Bank seeks to challenge the order of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in Revision Petition No.142/2010 dated 31/08/2011. 2. W.P.(C) No.9935/2014 is filed by the 2nd respondent in the OP(C) referred to above against the Joint Registrar and the Bank as the respondents, under Article 226 4 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of mandamus to command the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1 filed by the petitioner to issue directions to the second respondent Bank to disburse the salary and terminal benefits due to the petitioner. 3. In view of the fact that the parties to both the petitions are common in the dispute which is being agitated and to be decided is also common, both the petitions are disposed vide this common judgment. 4. The parties are hereinafter referred to in accordance with their status in the O.P.(C) No.1169/2012, unless expressly stated otherwise. The 2nd respondent joined the services of the Bank as a Bill Collector in the year 1979. He was thereafter promoted as a Junior Clerk and then as a Senior Clerk. In the year 1998, he was placed in charge of the Branch Manager, Kottiyam Branch of the Bank. He continued in that position till he was placed under suspension pending enquiry on 5 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 15/05/2003. There are two bill collectors employed in the branch who collected amounts from depositors and deposited those amounts in the Bank. The bill collectors allegedly misappropriated a total sum of 7,23,228/- from out of the₹ amounts received from the depositors. The Chief Accountant of the Bank discovered the misappropriation and reported the same. The 2[nd] respondent was found to be negligent and thus guilty of misconduct and dereliction of duty. He was thereafter served with a charge memo on 13/10/2003 by the Managing Committee of the Bank and a Sub Committee was constituted for initiating disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the charge memo laid against the delinquent. An enquiry officer was deputed to conduct a domestic enquiry. The 2[nd] respondent had filed W.P.(C)No.23378/2003 challenging the action against him before this Court. Vide order in IA No. 13173/2003 this Court directed that if the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 2nd respondent is not 6 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 completed before his superannuation on 31/12/2003, a penalty of dismissal or removal from service shall not be imposed. The enquiry officer commenced the domestic enquiry on 15/11/2003 and completed it on 21/07/2004 a report was filed by the enquiry officer on 31/08/2004 finding that the charges levelled against the 2nd respondent herein were all found against him. The delinquent filed an objection to the enquiry report on 15/09/2004. Thereafter, he was served with notice dated 20/09/2004 directing him to show cause why the punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed upon him. He submitted an explanation on 24/09/2004. After considering his reply and the enquiry report he was dismissed from service with effect from the date of his suspension, vide order dated 28/09/2004. In the meanwhile, the delinquent had already retired from service with effect from 31/12/2003. In view of the order of this Court in IA No. 13173/2003 in W.P.(C) No.23378/2003, there was an order to complete the 7 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 disciplinary proceedings before his superannuation and in case it was not completed before the stipulated time, no order for dismissal or removal from service could be passed. The 2[nd] respondent therefore filed a Contempt Case (C) No. 1498/2004 before this Court alleging that the dismissal order was in contempt of the order of this Court preventing such dismissal. The sub-committee thereafter reviewed the order of dismissal and vide another order dated 04/12/2004 imposed the punishment of treating the period of suspension as suspension and denied him the pay during that period as also terminal benefits. The 2[nd] respondent filed a statutory appeal before the Managing Committee which too was dismissed vide order dated 10/05/2005. Aggrieved by that order, the 2nd respondent approached the Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram by filing ARC No.25/2005. Vide Award dated 28/10/2008, the ARC was allowed and the punishment imposed on the 2[nd] respondent was set aside. Aggrieved by 8 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 that, the Bank approached the Tribunal with revision petition No.142/2010. Vide the impugned order dated 31/08/2011, the Co-operative Tribunal dismissed the revision. It is that order which stands challenged before this Court in the O.P. (C)1168/2012. 5. W.P.(C) No.9935/2014 is filed by the delinquent employee G. Sreedharan Pillai with the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (General), Kollam as the first respondent and the abovementioned Bank as the second respondent. The allegation therein is that in consequence to the completion of the domestic enquiry post his superannuation, he was imposed with a punishment of dismissal. That was an order in contempt of the order of this court. On petition filed for contempt, the order of dismissal was recalled. But the subsequent order of the Bank treating the period of suspension as suspension, and denying him the terminal benefits was even more strange, and unsustainable. The delinquent was successful in challenging 9 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 the decision before the Arbitration Court, and the Tribunal has confirmed that order in Revision filed by the Bank. Even though the Tribunal's Order has been challenged by the Bank, there is no stay granted by this Court. Hence, at present, there is no order of dismissal or suspension pending against the delinquent. He submitted Ext.P1 representation before the first respondent to disburse his pending salary and terminal benefits. Ext.P4 reminder has also not been attended to. Hence, the Writ has been filed to direct the respondents to consider the representation. 6. The Bank has filed a counter affidavit in the WP(C) stating that the earlier W.P(C) 15703/2003 was filed by the delinquent challenging the order of suspension. Subsequently, the delinquent had filed W.P.(C) 23378/2003 seeking very same relief as sought in the present Writ petition. This Court had disposed of the aforesaid WP(C) 23378/2003 with a direction to finalise the disciplinary proceedings within 3 10 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 weeks. Thereafter the delinquent filed W.P.(C) 25095/2004 for mandamus to direct the Bank and the Joint Registrar to disburse the areas of salary in consequence to the pay revision as also the Provident Funds and arears of pension etc. The said Writ Petition was withdrawn by the delinquent. The domestic enquiry was conducted by a retired Principal of Co-operative College, and after completion of the enquiry report was submitted on 31/08/2004. After giving the delinquent an opportunity to put forth his explanation, the sub-committee ordered justification of the suspension and denied retiral benefits, including pension to the delinquent. The appeal preferred by the delinquent was rejected by the Board. ARC No. 25/2005 before the Arbitration Court was allowed and the revision petition filed by the Bank was rejected for no valid reasons and in consequence to that OP(C) No.1169/2012 was preferred by the Bank. After the delinquent entered appearance as the 2[nd] respondent, he filed I.A.592/2013 11 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 before this Court seeking clarification that the pendency of the Writ Petition will not affect his right to initiate appropriate action to enforce the orders of the ARC and the Tribunal. He did not succeed in getting a clarification and therefore he has filed this Writ Petition No. 9935/2014 which was made only in the year 2016. The present Writ petition is filed on the grounds of Res Judicata/Constructive Res Judicata. Hence the Bank seeks dismissal of W.P(C)No.9935/2014. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties in both the petitions. The two points which arise for consideration in these petitions are thus: 1. Was the Tribunal justified in dismissing the revision petition? 2. Is the petitioner in W.P.(C)9935/2014 entitled to the relief of mandamus sought? ## Point No. 1: 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits 12 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 that interfering with the findings of domestic enquiry is to a very limited extent and therefore, the Arbitration Court as also the Tribunal were not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee who has committed a very grave offence of misappropriation and dereliction of duty. 9. The main reason for setting aside the order of the sub-committee by the Arbitration Court there is illegality in the imposition of penalty consequent to the recalling of the earlier order of dismissal, and no show cause notice was issued before the passing of the modified punishment of treating the period of suspension as suspension and depriving the delinquent of the terminal benefits. It was also observed that the delinquent was only a Senior Clerk holding additional charge of a Branch Manager and as per the Rules, it was the President who is to take action against a person employed as Senior Clerk. The Sub Committee is authorised to take action 13 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 only against the Branch Managers which the delinquent was not. The arbitrator also found that the penalty imposed by the Sub-committee was not in accordance with the statutory penalties specified in Rule 198(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules ('the Rules' for short). The challenge of the delinquent that the enquiry officer was the legal adviser of the Bank and therefore, such an enquiry is in violation of the settled principles of natural justice, is also upheld by the Arbitrator. The suit was decreed. 10. The revision filed before the Tribunal, was dismissed although on some of the points, the Tribunal disagreed with the Arbitrator. The finding that the Sub Committee was not competent to impose punishment or take disciplinary action against the delinquent as he was only a Senior Clerk, is not held by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also disagreed with the Arbitration Court on the point that the punishment imposed by the sub-committee was not in accordance with Rule 198(1) of 14 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 the Rules. The finding of the Arbitration Court that the domestic enquiry was illegal and the imposition of punishment of dismissal were without rendering opportunity to the delinquent of being heard is concurred with by the Tribunal. It was observed by the Arbitration Court as also the Tribunal that in view of the directions of the High Court that no punishment for dismissal of removal from service shall be imposed in case of failure to complete the disciplinary proceedings before the date of superannuation, no punishment of dismissal or removal of the delinquent consequent to his superannuation could be made. The Tribunal agreed with the Arbitration Court that the explanation is not from the delinquent for imposing a penalty of dismissal could not be treated as an opportunity given to him prior to the imposition of the modified punishment that was ultimately imposed upon him. 11. One of the main arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the delinquent employee is that OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 15 departmental proceedings can be initiated and continued only in terms of the Rules framed by the employer and that an absence of any Rules as in the present case, the civil proceedings against the delinquent employee subsequent to his retirement should not have been continued. The learned counsel relies on a catena of decisions of the Apex Court in B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat and Ors. v. [(1978)2 SCC 202], State Bank of India and Ors v. T.J.Paul [(1999)4 SCC 759], Chandra Singh and Ors v. State of Rajasthan and Another [(2003) 6 SCC 545], Girijan Coopertive Corporation Ltd. Andhara Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana Rao [(2010)15 SCC 322], Dev Prkash Tewari v.Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and Ors [(2014) 7 SCC 260] . In another decision of the Apex Court in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C.and Ors [(1999)3 SCC 666] , it was held that in the absence of specific provision for its continuance after retirement, the domestic enquiry lapsed, and that the 16 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 retired employee was entitled to all retiral benefits including full salary for the suspension period preceding the retirement. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court has while considering the relevant provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act of Tamil Nadu held that if there is no service Rules or bye-law as of the Society empowering employer to continue departmental proceedings, the employer has no authority to continue departmental proceedings after retirement of the employee. (See Andiyannan v. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies [2015(3)KLT SN(C No.42) Mad(F.B)] ). 12. The learned counsel appearing for the delinquent has also submitted that the order of dismissal or removal from service consequent to the departmental enquiry continuing after superannuation would have the effect of dismissal with retrospective effect, which is not possible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of Patiala and another v. Ram Niwas Bansal (Dead) through legal representatives OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 17 [(2014)12 SCC 106] , wherein it was held that dismissal order cannot be made prospectively operative, but that will not invalidate the order of dismissal and it would only have prospective effect. The learned counsel for the delinquent would also rely on the decision of the Apex Court in Vijay Singh v. State of U.P and others [(2012) 5 SCC 242] which held that the under service law holding departmental proceedings and recording finding of guilt against any delinquent and imposing punishment for same is a quasi-judicial function and not administrative function. Hence the authorities have to strictly adhere to the statutory Rules while imposing punishment. If the Rules do not empower the disciplinary authority to impose "any other" major or minor punishment, such punishment not prescribed under the Rules as a result of disciplinary proceedings cannot be awarded as punishment for a proved delinquency is regulated and controlled by statutory Rules. Therefore, while performing the quasi-judicial functions 18 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 the authority is not permitted to ignore the statutory Rules under which punishment is to be imposed. The disciplinary authority is bound to give strict adherence to the said Rules. Thus, the order of punishment being outside the purview of the statutory Rules is a nullity and cannot be enforced against the Appellant. 13. Referring to the allegations made against the delinquent the learned counsel appearing for him submits that there is no allegation that the delinquent had misappropriated the amount. The initial allegation against him was that he was not vigilant enough and that there was a lapse of supervision. The specific allegation is that it was the bill collectors who had misappropriated the amounts that they had collected from the depositors. The criminal case registered against the delinquent has ended in acquittal for want of sufficient evidence. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Managing Director, State Bank of Hyderabad and another v. P Kata Rao [AIR 2000 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 19 Supreme Court 2146] , the learned counsel submits that in a case where misconduct was alleged against the the delinquent and he was acquitted in the criminal case, as in this case, it has to be held that the misconduct on the part of the delinquent was neither willful nor there existed any fraudulent intention on his part to falsify the account. While considering the proportionality of punishment, distinction lies between the irregularities constituting misconduct from the act of misappropriation of finances causing loss to the institution. The order of dismissal as also the subsequently modified order of denying the delinquent the arrears of pay as well as retiral benefits, according to the learned counsel is a punishment which is grossly disproportionate to the allegations made against him. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that the disciplinary authority is expected to prove charges on preponderance of probability and not on 20 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, it is urged that the acquittal of the delinquent in the criminal case is of no consequence as proof beyond reasonable doubt is what is required in a criminal proceedings. The learned counsel relies on the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of India and others v. Narendra Kumar Pandey [(2013)2 SCC 740] in support of his argument. It is pointed out that the delinquent was employed as a manager of a branch of the Bank was doing an act prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, or gross negligence involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss, is an act which is a misconduct sufficient to attract the penalty of dismissal from service. 15. After taking into consideration the arguments advanced by both sides, and the precedents relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for them, I find that the findings in the disciplinary proceedings is not something which is to be interfered with on the basis of the evidence that is adduced 21 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 and there is a limited scope to upset the finding that arrived at during the domestic enquiry. Management of co-operative societies including Banks run by such societies come within the purview of the Cooperative Societies Laws. The delinquent with whom this Court is presently concerned with was employed as a Senior Clerk and posted in charge of the branch as Branch Manager. It is alleged that there was dereliction of duty on his part for not having properly supervised the functioning of the bill collectors who were put in charge of collecting money from the depositors. This Court had specifically directed that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the delinquent to be completed before his superannuation. In case it was not possible to complete the enquiry before his retirement, no punishment of dismissal or removal from service shall be made. Admittedly, the disciplinary enquiry was completed only subsequent to the retirement of the delinquent. Even though the management had initially decided to impose the 22 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 punishment of dismissal of the 2[nd] respondent, it was recalled and the punishment of treating the suspension and depriving him of his retirement benefits was imposed. Rule 198(1) of the Rules enumerates the punishments that can be imposed on a delinquent employee. Rule 198(1)(g)(h) stipulates compulsory retirement and dismissal from service, respectively, as punishment. In the instant case the delinquent was intended to be imposed with a punishment of dismissal from service. Such a decision taken by the managing committee was against the orders passed by this Court and therefore, the delinquent moved for contempt. Realising the mistake, the original punishment of dismissal from service was recalled and the aforesaid punishment was imposed. Undoubtedly, this is not a punishment which is a enumerated in Rule 198(1). Hence, the present punishment was imposed on the delinquent. Rule 198(2) states that no kind of punishment shall be awarded to an employee unless he has been informed in writing of the 23 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 grounds on which it is proposed to take action against and he has been afforded an opportunity to include a personal hearing to defend himself. The only notice that was served on the delinquent was a notice of dismissal and the notice of subsequently modified punishment was not served, admittedly. Apart from the order of this Court directing the managing committee not to impose a punishment of dismissal or removal of service in case the disciplinary enquiry is not completed before the retirement of the delinquent, there is also a Circular No. 34/10 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 03/07/2010 based on the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)No.7490/2009. The Registrar is directed that the disciplinary action under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, can be initiated and continued against the employees of the Co-operative institutions, only till they remain in service. The penalty as contemplated in Rule 198(1) cannot be imposed on them after their retirement. Therefore, 24 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 all the disciplinary authority will take special care to ensure that the disciplinary cases pending against the employees of Co-Operative institutions are finalised expeditiously in any case, before the concerned employees retire from service on superannuation or within the period of extension of suspension granted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies whichever is earlier. Moreover, Rule 198(6) makes it very clear that no employee shall be kept under suspension for a period exceeding six months at the time and in no case an employee shall be kept under suspension for a continuous period exceeding one year without the prior approval of the Registrar. In the instant case, no such approval has been obtained. Under the circumstances, the punishment of dismissal was apparently illegal. The subsequent punishment imposed on the delinquent is not found a place in Rule 198(1). Since the enquiry against the delinquent employee is conducted in accordance with the statutory provisions in the Rules framed, no punishment other 25 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 than what has been prescribed as per the statute could be imposed upon the delinquent. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned Order of the Tribunal. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. ## Point No.2 16. Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994 came into effect in the year 1994. The delinquent in the instant case is governed by the said scheme. Para 18 of the Scheme specifies that every employee of a society to which this Scheme applies shall, subject to the other provisions of the Scheme, be eligible for pension under the Scheme. Sub-paragraph (2) of para 18 of the Scheme stipulates that an employee who has been dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency shall not be eligible for pension. In the instant case, the applicant has not been dismissed or removed for the reasons stated above. Hence, his retiral benefits including OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 26 pension, if eligible, cannot be declined. In the result, O.P.(C) No.1169 of 2012 is dismissed for the reasons stated in answer to point No. (1). WP(C) No.9935 of 2014 is allowed and the 1[st] respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1 filed by the petitioner to issue directions to the second respondent Bank to disburse the salary and terminal benefits due to the petitioner. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs. Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE jg OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 27 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) NO.1169/2012** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.5.2003 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK TO R2.** **P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.5.2003 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK FOR THE SUSPENSION OF R2.** **P3 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.5.2003 IN WP(C) 15703/2003 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **P4 : COPY OF ORDER NO.CRP(2) 3388/03 DATED 4.7.2003 ISSUED BY R1.** **P5 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6.10.2003 IN WP(C) NO.23378/2003 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **P6 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 9.3.2004 SUBMITTED BY R2 TO R1.** **P7 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.6.2007 IN WP(C) NO.25095/2004 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **P8 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK.** **P9 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.2.2005 PASSED BY THE SUB COMMITTEE CHALLENGED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PETITIONER BANK.** **P10 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.5.2005 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK.** **P11 : COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION IN ARC NO.25/2005 FILED BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 28 **P12 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED –/3/2006 FILED IN ARC NO.25/05 BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **P13 : COPY OF HTE AWARD DATED 28/10/2008 IN ARC NO.25/2005 OF THE CO-OP. ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **P14 : COPY OF HTE REVISION PETITION NO.142/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BANK BEFORE THE HONOURABLE KERALA CO-OP. TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **P15 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.8.2011 IN REVISION PETITION NO.142/10 OF THE KERALA CO-OP. TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **//TRUE COPY//** OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14 29 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9935/2014** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURE** **EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDNT DATED 10/12/2012.** **EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 13/12/2012 EVIDENCING DISPATCH OF EXT.P1.** **EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGE CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P1 REPRESENTATION ON 14/12/2012.** **EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 12/6/2013.** **EXT.P5; TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGE CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P4 REMINDER LETTER ON 13/6/2013.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** **EXT.R2(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.6.2007 IN WP(C) 25095/2004 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** **EXT.R2(b) : TRUE COPY OF IA NO.592/2013 IN OP(C) 1169/2012 FILED BY R2.** //TRUE COPY//