IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 1030 of 2003(C) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.21818/1998 Dated 04/09/2002 .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN OP: ----------------------------------------- N.SHAJI KUMAR, KIZHAKKEKARAYIL, AREEPARAMBU POST, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.R.MANIAMMA, W/O. N.SHAJI KUMAR, DO. DO. BY ADV. MR.P.V.BABY MR.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN OP: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. PRESIDENT AIDED PRIMARY TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.K.334, KOTTAYAM. 2. AIDED PRIMARY TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.334, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. * 4. THAMBI, JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER TO PALGHAT) * R4 DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 1.8.07 IN W.A.NO.1030/2003. ADV. MS.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI MR.E.R.VENKATESWARAN MR.P.N.MOHANAN FOR R1 SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. ANEETHA FOR R3. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ========================================= W.A.No.1030 of 2003 - C =============================== Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was the 3rd respondent in the original petition. He was an employee of the 2nd respondent Co-operative Society. He was dismissed from service after having been found guilty in a disciplinary proceeding duly taken. In fact, before the disciplinary authority as well as the enquiry officer, the appellant admitted his guilt and pleaded for a lenient view. But having regard to the past history of the appellant, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service. The said decision was confirmed by the appellate authority also. The decision of the society was challenged before this Court which led to the passing of Ext.P6 judgment. This Court directed the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal with an open mind. But the appellate authority again decided to dismiss the appellant from service. He filed a petition under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules before the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies praying to rescind the orders of the Society. The Joint Registrar after hearing both sides set aside the appellate order on two grounds. First ground is that the order of the W.A.No.1030 of 2003 - C 2 appellate authority is not in conformity with the order of this Court. Secondly, it was found that appellate order was passed in violation of Rule 198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. Based on the above findings, the appeal was remanded to the managing committee of the society for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The said order is produced as Ext.P9 in the original petition. Challenging Ext.P9, the society and its president who are respondents 1 and 2 herein preferred the original petition. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides allowed the original petition and set aside Ext.P9. It was found that both the grounds taken by the Joint Registrar to interfere with the dismissal of the appellant are unsustainable. The learned Single Judge found that there was no positive direction in Ext.P6 except to consider the appeal with an open mind. It was also found that Rule 198(4) was not violated in this case as the persons who constituted the sub committee did not participate in the managing committee which considered the appeal. Based on the above findings the original petition was allowed. The 3rd respondent in the original petition being aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, filed this writ appeal. W.A.No.1030 of 2003 - C 3 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ext.P9 is only a remand order and therefore the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with it. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Government Pleader for the 3rd respondent in the appeal. 4. We have gone through Ext.P9. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Both the grounds taken by the Joint Registrar in Ext.P9 are factually incorrect and legally untenable. The decision of the Society cannot be described as a decision not in conformity with Ext.P6. Further none of the members in the sub committee participated in the managing committee which decided the appeal. Therefore, there is no violation of rule 198(4). Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. bkn/-