IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15388 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC: --------------------------------------------- T.Y.SHAMSU, AGED 51, S/O.YOUSEPH, THEVARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, LIBERTY LANE, ASHOKA ROAD, KALLOOR P.O., KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.P.GEORGE VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC: ------------------------------------------------- 1. TATAPURAM CO-OPERATIVE STORES LTD.NO. 269, TATAPURAM, KOCHI-14, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, ERNAKULAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15388 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he is an Attender working under the 1st respondent society. Earlier he was dismissed from the services and following the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha in ID No.59/02, he was reinstated in service as per Ext.P1 order. Subsequently, Ext.P2 order was issued placing the petitioner under suspension alleging certain misconducts. Memo of charges were issued and enquiry was conducted. Report has been submitted finding the petitioner guilty and by Ext.P7, petitioner was called upon to make his representations against the findings of the enquiry officer. 2. The petitioner complained against the manner in which enquiry was conducted and therefore sought reopening of the enquiry by filing Ext.P8. 3. Petitioner has a complaint that the 1st respondent has not paid his subsistence allowance since 22/4/2008 when he was placed under suspension. According to him, his representations in this behalf did not yield any result and therefore he has filed WPC 15388/09 :2 : Exts.P5 and P6 before the 2nd respondent complaining of non payment of the subsistence allowance. It is stated that this also has not been responded. It is at this stage the writ petition is filed mainly praying that the enquiry should be reopened and subsistence allowance should be paid. 4. In my view, the prayer for reopening of the enquiry now made is misconceived. If the enquiry is invalid for any reason, it is for the petitioner to point out the alleged irregularities in his representation, which he has been called upon to submit in response to Ext.P7. 5. It is the settled position of law that the enquiry officer is only a delegate of the disciplinary authority and that the disciplinary authority is not bound by the findings of the enquiry officer. Therefore, if there is any invalidating factor in the conduct of the enquiry, it is always open to the petitioner to take advantage of the same before the disciplinary authority, in which event, it is to the disciplinary authority to consider that issue as well. Therefore, at this stage, nothing has been brought out for interference in this writ petition. 6. Be that as it may,in so far as the case of the petitioner WPC 15388/09 :3 : regarding the non payment of subsistence allowance is concerned, having regard to the fact that this issue has been raised before the 2nd respondent by filing Exts.P5 and P6, it is directed that the 2nd respondent shall consider those representations and pass orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 7. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp