IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 34418 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRI.GOPAKUMAR.B, JUNIOR CLERK (UNDER ORDER OF DISMISSAL)PARANTHAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.202, PARANTHAL.P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA DT. RESIDING AT ARUVIKKARA GANESHAM, MANNAM NAGAR.P.O, PERUMPULICKAL, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PARANTHAL SERVICE CO-OPERARTIVE BANK LTD. NO. A 202, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARANTHAL.P.O (VIA) PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE PRESIDENT, PARANTHAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. A 202, PARANTHAL.P.O, VIA PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. THE DISCIPLINARY SUB COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, PARANTHAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.A 202, PARANTHAL.P.O, VIA PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ FOR R1,4 & 5 SRI.SAJJU.S FOR R1,4 &5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.34418 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was a Junior Clerk under the first respondent Bank. He was placed under suspension by Ext.P3 order dated 3.5.2007 issued by the Secretary. Subsequently, Ext.P4 memo of charges was issued. An enquiry was conducted and Ext.P6 is the report submitted, where the petitioner has been found guilty. Thereafter, by Ext.P12 order, petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from the service of the Bank and this order was issued by the Sub Committee of the Board of Directors. 2. In the meanwhile, petitioner pursued his remedies by filing Ext.P6 before the Joint Registrar. According to him, the Secretary, who issued Ext.P3 order placing him under suspension was incompetent to pass such an order. Thereafter, he approached this court by filing WP(c). WP(c).No.34418/08 2 No.26708/08. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment directing the Joint Registrar to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, questioning the validity of Ext.P3. The Joint Registrar accordingly considered the issue and issued Ext.P13. Although, some of the observations in the said order suggest that the Joint Registrar was prima facie satisfied with the case canvassed by the petitioner, still having regard to the fact that in the meantime, by Ext.P12, the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from service, the joint Registrar held further enquiry into the controversy unnecessary and on that basis Ext.P13 order was passed. It is in these circumstances the writ Petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P12 and P13 and for a direction to reinstate him in service with back wages and other benefits from 3.5.2007. 3. I heard the counsel appearing for the first respondent also. WP(c).No.34418/08 3 4. In so far as Ext.P12, the order of dismissal passed by the Sub Committee of the Board of Directors is concerned, counsel for the Bank also concedes that the said order is not in compliance with the provisions of Rule 198 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules. Necessarily, therefore Ext.P12 has to be set aside. But then that is not the end of the matter. As already stated by Ext.P6 report of enquiry was received by the disciplinary authority. Since Ext.P12 has been set aside on technical grounds, disciplinary authority is at liberty to continue the proceedings from the stage of Ext.P6. Therefore, while quashing Ext.P12 it is clarified that it will be open to the disciplinary authority to continue the proceedings. 5. Now that Ext.P3 has merged with Ext.P12 and Ext.P12 has been set aside, necessarily, petitioner has to be reinstated in service. Although this request of the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the first respondent, I am not inclined to take a different view. WP(c).No.34418/08 4 6. Now what remains is the validity of Exts.P3 and P13. As already stated, against Ext.P3 order of suspension, the petitioner approached the Joint Registrar and this court by Ext.P9 judgment directed the Joint Registrar to pass orders on the application. The Joint Registrar however did not examine the matter on merits, as in the meantime, by Ext.P12 the petitioner was dismissed from service. Now that Ext.P12 order of dismissal has been set aside, necessarily, the prayer of the petitioner against Ext.P3 revives. As a necessary consequence, I quash Ext.P13 and direct the Joint Registrar to reconsider the matter with notice to the parties. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.34418/08 5