High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-08-23Dismissed

RP NO. 763 OF 2022 & RP NO. 766 OF 2022 (Review Petitions) against WP(C) Nos. 5747/2021 and 8330/2020, High Court of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:RP 763 of 2022; RP 766 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-08-23
Court Decision / Holding: These review petitions are dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

The Thuruthipuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.1789, Thuruthipuram P.O., Ernakulam-680667, represented by its Secretary
The Board of Directors of the Thuruthipuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.1789, Thuruthipuram P.O., Ernakulam-680667, represented by its President
The Chairman, Disciplinary Committee, Thuruthipuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.1789, Thuruthipuram P.O., Ernakulam-680667

Respondents

V.R. Antony, Vadakkedath House, Thuruthipuram P.O., North Paravur, Velloottumpuram, Ernakulam District-680667
The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), North Paravur, Ernakulam District-680667
The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ernakulam Civil Station, B-2 Block, 5th Floor, Kakkanadu, Ernakulam District-682030
SMT PARVATHY K – GP

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. George Poonthottam, Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt. Ann Maria Francis, learned counsel for the petitioners in both petitions

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P.P. Jacob, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent in these petitions

Case Synopsis & Summary

These are two review petitions (RP 763/2022 and RP 766/2022) filed by the Thuruthipuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and related officials challenging judgments in W.P.(C) Nos. 5747/2021 and 8330/2020 of the Kerala High Court, both dated 25.07.2022. The petitions arise from disciplinary proceedings initiated by a Disciplinary Sub Committee under the authority of the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society. The petitioners contend that the Managing Committee had already decided to issue Charge Memos, as evidenced by minutes/annexures, making the Disciplinary Sub Committee’s action a mere formality; they rely on Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joshy Varghese and Others (2020 (4) KLT 129) to argue that the Managing Committee should issue the charge memos and that the Sub Committee could not independently do so. The respondents invoke Joshy Varghese (supra) to insist that the Disciplinary Sub Committee cannot issue charge memos and that the Managing Committee’s power cannot be delegated; the Sub Committee’s actions would therefore be without proper authority. The court, in exercise of its review jurisdiction, notes it cannot reassess the merits but must determine whether declarations were legally tenable. It adopts the view from Joshy Varghese to hold that the impugned Charge Memos were untenable for lacking authorization by the Managing Committee, as the minutes do not show such authorization, and accordingly dismisses the petitions. The decision underscores the necessity of proper attribution of disciplinary powers within the cooperative society.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that the Minutes of the Managing Committee clearly show it had decided to issue the Charge Memos; thus, the Disciplinary Sub Committee’s memos were merely a formality. They submit Annexures (Minutes dated 05.04.2018 and 15.08.2018) to support that the Managing Committee authorized the action, and argue that the reasoning in Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. cannot apply to their case.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on the principle laid down in Joshy Varghese (supra) that the Charge Memo must be issued by the Managing Committee; the Disciplinary Sub Committee cannot exercise that power, since the Managing Committee’s authority cannot be delegated. They contend that the review petitions be dismissed and that the impugned memos were issued without proper Authorization.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Others v. Joshy Varghese and others	2020 (4) KLT 129	Distinguished	The court distinguished this decision and held it not applicable to the present facts; the present case relies on the controlling principle from Joshy Varghese that the Managing Committee must issue charge memos.
Joshy Varghese and Others	2020 (4) KLT 129	Positive	The decision establishes that a Charge Memo should be issued by the Managing Committee, not by the Disciplinary Sub Committee; the current judgment applies this principle to invalidate the impugned memos for lack of authorization.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 RP NO. 763 OF 2022 & RP NO. 766 OF 2022 (Review Petitions) against WP(C) Nos. 5747/2021 and 8330/2020, High Court of Kerala 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 TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 1ST BHADRA, 1944** ## **RP NO. 763 OF 2022** ## **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5747/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:** 1 THE THURUTHIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1789, THURUTHIPPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-680 667, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE THURUTHIPURAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1789, THURUTHIPPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-680 667, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 3 THE CHAIRMAN, DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, THURUTHIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED. NO.1789, THURUTHIPPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-680 667, GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) NISHA GEORGE ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 V.R.ANTONY, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, THURUTHIPURAM P.O., NORTH PARAVUR , VELLOTTUMPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-680 667 2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-680 667 3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, B-2 BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 030 SMT PARVATHY K-GP THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2022, ALONG WITH RP.766/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RP NO. 763 OF 2022 & CON.CASE 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 1ST BHADRA, 1944** **RP NO. 766 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENTWP(C) 8330/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF** ## **KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:** - 1 THE THURUTHIPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 1789, THURUTHIPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM 680667, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. - 2 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE THURUTHIPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 1789, THURUTHIPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM 680667, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. - 3 THE CHAIRMAN, DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, THURUTHIPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 1789, THURUTHIPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM - 680667. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) NISHA GEORGE ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 V.R.ANTONY, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, THURUTHIPURAM P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR, VELLOTTUMPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 680667. - 2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 680667. - 3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, B-2 BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, RP NO. 763 OF 2022 & CON.CASE 3 KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 682030. SMT.PARVATHY K – GP. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2022, ALONG WITH RP.763/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RP NO. 763 OF 2022 & CON.CASE 4 ## **ORDER** ## **[RP Nos.763/2022, 766/2022]** These applications, for review of the judgments of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.8330/2020 and 5747/2021 both dated 25.07.2022, have been impelled with the specific plea that, though the Charge Memos against the writ petitioners in both cases were issued by the Disciplinary Sub Committee appointed by the Managing Committee of the petitioner – Society, the same was based on a decision taken by the latter in their meeting held earlier. 2. Sri.George Poonthottam, learned senior counsel, instructed by Smt.Ann Maria Francis, learned counsel for the petitioners in both these petitions, submitted that the copy of the Minute Book of the Managing Committee produced on record as Annexures would clearly indicate that it had taken the decision to issue Charge Memos to the writ petitioner, recording the reasons which persuaded them to do so. He submitted that, therefore, the consequent issuance of the Charge Memos by the Disciplinary Sub Committee was only a formality and resultant action; and hence that the rigor of the declarations in **Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank** RP NO. 763 OF 2022 & CON.CASE 5 ## **Ltd. and Others v. Joshy Varghese and others** [2020 (4) KLT 129] cannot apply. 3. Sri.P.P.Jacob, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/ respondent in these petitions, however, submitted that the afore contentions can never be tenable because **Joshy Varghese** (supra) has established the law clearly that a Charge Memo would not have been issued by the Disciplinary Sub Committee, but only by the Managing Committee. He then specifically contended that, since the statutory power of the Managing Committee is not capable of being delegated to any other Authority, the Disciplinary Sub Committee would not have issued the impugned Charge Memos, even under their dictates or directions. He thus prayed that these review petitions be dismissed. 4. When I proceed to analyse the afore rival submissions, it must be borne in mind that in applications for review, this Court is not expected to hear the matter again or to re-assess the contentions afresh. All which I am expected to verify is whether this Court has erred in delivering the declarations in the judgments in question. 5. That being so said, **Joshy Varghese** (supra) makes it RP NO. 763 OF 2022 & CON.CASE 6 indubitable that the impugned Charge Memos issued by the Disciplinary Sub Committee are untenable and that the same could have been done only by the Managing Committee. 6. In such circumstances, when the impugned Charge Memos do not even whisperingly say that it has been issued under the authorisation of the Managing Committee; and when, pertinently, the minutes of the meeting of the Managing Committee produced on record, along with the review petitions, do not even record that they have authorised the Sub Committee to issue the same, I fail to understand why these applications have been filed. In the afore circumstances, these review petitions are dismissed. **Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** stu RP NO. 763 OF 2022 & CON.CASE 7 ## **APPENDIX OF RP 766/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SOCIETY DATED 05.04.2018, WHICH CONTAIN THE DECISION TO ISSUE THE CHARGE MEMO. Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SOCIETY DATED 15.08.2018. RP NO. 763 OF 2022 & CON.CASE 8 ## **APPENDIX OF RP 763/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SOCIETY DATED 05/04/2018, WHICH CONTAIN THE DECISION TO ISSUE THE CHARGE MEMO Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SOCIETY DATED 15/08/2018.