IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2983 of 2009(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- R.SHYLAJA KUMARI, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, FORMERLY SECRETARY, THALAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO. 646, THALAVOOR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT “GOURI SERAS”, ARAPPURA AVENUE, ARAPPURA, VATTIYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. MR.G.D.PANICKER, SMT.JEENA JOSEPH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOLLAM. 2. PRESIDENT, URUKUNNU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., Q 190 URIKUNU P.O., PUNALOOR. 3. URUKUNNU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., Q 190, URIKUNNU P.O., PUNALOOR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.2983 of 2009-E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner, an employee of the third respondent co-operative bank in which the second respondent is the President, was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings. Her appeal has also been rejected by the committee of the society. She has filed Ext.P4 before the Joint Registrar invoking Rule 176 of the KCS Rules contending that she was suspended by the President which action is not sustainable and that the charge memos were not properly framed. She has also contended that the appeal was considered by the sub committee without sufficient quorum and that she was not given sufficient opportunity by the sub committee to verify the records. She has also impeached the enquiry on different other grounds, also even on WP(C)2983/2009 -: 2 :- merits. Having regard to the totality of the grounds raised in Ext.P4 and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the petitioner needs to prosecute a remedy where she can agitate the correctness of the findings against her on the merits on grounds of law, appreciation of evidence and other relevant contentions. For this procedure, Section 69 of the KCS Act provides an exclusive remedy, as has been held by this Court in Prakasini v. Joint Registrar [2006(1) KLT 199] affirmed by the Division Bench in FACT Service Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Balakrishna Menon [2007(3) ILR Kerala 483]. Therefore, in my considered view, no useful purpose would be served by directing the Joint Registrar to consider Ext.P4 against the decision of the management society. The petitioner has an adequate remedy under Section 69 against the decision sought to be challenged by way of Ext.P4. Hence, repelling the request for a WP(C)2983/2009 -: 3 :- direction to consider Ext.P4, this writ petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the disciplinary proceedings and her dismissal in appropriate arbitration proceedings before the competent authority in terms of Section 69 of the KCS Act. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/100209