Rajan N. v. State of Kerala and Keezhalloor Service Co-operative Bank Limited and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/25TH JYAISHTA 1934S** **WP(C).No. 5492 of 2012 (J) --------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **RAJAN.N., AGED 56 YEARS S/O.LATE KUNJURAMAN, 'RAJAPUSHPA' THERUR, EDAYANNUR P.O., KANNUR - 670 595.** **BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2. V.R.BHASKARAN, AGED 60, S/O.ANANDAN NAMBIAR, THE CHAIRMAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, KEEZHALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, H.O. ELAMPARA P.O., KANNUR - 670 595.** **3. RATHNA KUMAR, AGED 58, S/O.RAGHAVAN, MOOLAKKARY, CHYALODE, EDAYANNUR P.O., PIN - 670 595 THE MEMBER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE KEEZHALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, ELAMPARA.** **4. CHANDROTH RAMACHANDRAN MASTER AGED 60, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, CHANDROTH HOUSE VELLIAYAMPARAMBU, MATTANNUR COLLEGE P.O., MATTANNUR THE MEMBER, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, KEEZHALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, ELAMPARA-670 595.** **5. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KANNUR P.O., 670 001.** **R1 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.EGY N.ALIAS R2, R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 5492 of 2012** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 15.7.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.4.2010 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.8.2011 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 26.11.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3.12.2011 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE SHEET DATED 27.12.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3.1.2012 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.1.2012 BY THE RESPONDENT 2 TO 4.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.20004/2011 DATED 22.7.2011.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A. TO JUDGE** VPV ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.** ------------------------------W.P.(C)No.5492 of 2012 -------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th] day of June, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who was the Secretary of Keezhalloor Service Co-operative Bank Limited has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P8 order dated 7.1.2012 issued by the Chairman of the Administrative Committee of that bank whereby, the Chairman directed that the order of suspension earlier passed on 15.7.2011 shall continue until further orders. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. By Ext.P1 order dated 15.7.2011, the Administrative Committee of the Keezhalloor Service Co-operative Bank Limited placed the petitioner under suspension pending disciplinary action. The Chairman of the Administrative Committee thereafter issued Ext.P4 memo of charges dated 26.11.2011. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply dated 3.12.2011 denying the charges. Later, Ext.P6 additional memo of charges dated 27.12.2011 was issued, to which the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply dated 3.1.2012. The Administrative Committee that met on 7.1.2012 considered Exts.P5 and P7 replies submitted by the petitioner to Exts.P4 and P6 memos of charges and resolved to continue him under suspension until further orders. Ext.P8 proceedings dated 7.1.2012 was thereupon issued. W.P.(C)No.5492 of 2012 2 Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P8 and seeking the following reliefs: _"(a) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order calling for the entire records leading to Ext P8 and examine the legality, propriety of it and quash the same._ _(b) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order directing respondents 2 to 4 to take all steps to put the petitioner back in service forthwith."_ 3. The main contention raised in the writ petition is that in view of sub-rule (6) of rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, even assuming that the first order of suspension, was validly passed and for justifiable reasons, the suspension could not have been continued indefinitely. It is contended that under rule 198 (6) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, an employee cannot be kept under suspension for a period exceeding six months at a time and therefore, on that short ground, Ext.P8 order is liable to be set aside. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in **Leelamma v.** **Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation [2008 (2) KLT 608]** and **Indrasenan v. Joint Registrar [2009 (2) KLT 599]** in support of the said contention. 4. The second respondent has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 7.4.2012. In paragraphs 2 and 3 it is stated that Ext.P8 order being an order passed by the Chairman of the Administrative W.P.(C)No.5492 of 2012 3 Committee of a co-operative society, no writ will lie challenging that order for the reason that no writ will lie against a co-operative society. Alternatively it is contended that the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy before the Co-operative Arbitration Court and without exhausting the alternative remedy he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. In paragraph 4 it is contended that though the petitioner challenged Ext.P1 order of suspension by filing W.P.(C) No.20004 of 2011 in this Court and that writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner can challenge the order of suspension by instituting other appropriate proceedings before the Co-operative Arbitration Court, the petitioner has not disclosed the said fact in this writ petition. It is also stated that the petitioner has not so far invoked the Co-operative Arbitration Court. In paragraph 5 it is stated that as the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, the Administrative Committee decided to conduct an enquiry into the charges and appointed Sri.C.Madhavan, a senior member of the Mattannoor Bar to conduct an enquiry, that the first sitting of the Enquiry Officer was on 23.3.2012 and the enquiry was thereafter adjourned to 4.4.2012 at the request of the petitioner. Various other contentions are also raised in the counter affidavit. 5. I heard Sri.Babu Paul, learned counsel appearing for the W.P.(C)No.5492 of 2012 4 petitioner, Sri.Egy N.Alias, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 5 and Sri.M.Ramesh Chander, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4. Sri.Babu Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended relying on the decisions of this Court and the provisions contained in sub-rule (6) of rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 that Ext.P8 order which extends the suspension of the petitioner indefinitely and for a period in excess of six months is liable to be interfered with. The learned counsel also contended that though an additional memo of charges was served more than six months back, the enquiry was ordered only recently and in view of the fact that the sanction of the Registrar has not been obtained to place the petitioner under suspension beyond a period of one year, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service. Per contra, Sri.M.Ramesh Chander, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 contended that the enquiry has commenced, that the first sitting of the Enquiry Officer was on 23.3.2012, that on the petitioner's request the enquiry was adjourned to 4.4.2012, that there was a sitting of the Enquiry Officer on 14.6.2012 and that the enquiry now stands posted to 21.6.2012 for evidence. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 submitted that if the petitioner cooperates with the Enquiry Officer, the enquiry can be completed before the period of six months, computed from 15.1.2012, expires. W.P.(C)No.5492 of 2012 5 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The petitioner was placed under suspension initially by Ext.P1 order dated 15.7.2011. Though no time limit was stipulated therein, in view of sub-rule (6) of rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the petitioner could not have been kept under suspension beyond six months. Therefore, a second order of suspension was required to be passed and consequently Ext.P8 order was passed, extending the suspension but stipulating that the petitioner will continue under suspension until further orders. On the terms of sub-rule (6) of rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules as interpreted by this Court in **Leelamma** **v. Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation [supra]** and **Indrasenan v. Joint Registrar [supra]** an order indefinitely keeping an employee of a co-operative society under suspension could not have been issued. However that by itself, in my opinion, is not a reason to invalidate Ext.P8 for the reason that an order placing the petitioner under suspension for a further period of six months could have been passed on 15.1.2012. The grievance of the petitioner is about being kept indefinitely under suspension without conducting an enquiry. The said grievance of the petitioner can in my opinion, be redressed by directing that Ext.P8 order of suspension will W.P.(C)No.5492 of 2012 6 have efficacy only for a period of six months from 15.1.2012 unless, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies or such other competent authority permits the employer society to keep the petitioner under suspension for a continuous period exceeding one year. That apart, the employer has offered complete the enquiry if the petitioner cooperates with the Enquiry Officer within a period of six months from the date of Ext.P8 order. It is also stated that the enquiry stands posted to 21.6.2012 for evidence. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction that unless the Registrar of Co-operative Societies or such other competent authority grants prior approval to keep the petitioner under suspension beyond a period of one year with effect from 15.7.2011, respondents 2 to 4 shall reinstate him in service on the expiry of the period of six months from 15.1.2012, if in the meanwhile, the enquiry is not finalised and an appropriate decision is not taken in the disciplinary action initiated against him. Sd/- **P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE** /TRUE COPY/ P.A. To JUDGE vpv W.P.(C)No.5492 of 2012 7