IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P.(C).No.21997 of 2004(R) ------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER:- --------------------- THE PALGHAT CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, PALAKKAD - 678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PALAKKAD. 3. SMT.BALAMEENAKSHY, BRANCH MANAGER, PALAKKAD CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LIMITED, EDATHARA BRANCH, PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT NALINI VIHAR, INDIRA NAGAR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD COLONY, KELLEPULLY, PALAKKAD - 678 005. 4. SRI.P.G.RAMDAS, SECRETARY IN CHARGE, THE PALAKKAD CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., PALAKKAD - 678 001. R1 & R2 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.G.ANEETHA. R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ & SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- W.P.(C).NO.21997 OF 2004-R. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- -------------------------------------- EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY R3 BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATION. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2217/2002/CRB/KDS. DATED 30.5.2002 ISSUED BY R2. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.22.5.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BANK BEFORE R2. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.3.7.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR BANK BEFORE R2. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.116/03/CRB/K.DIS. DATED 31.7.2003, PASSED BY R2. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 19.10.2002. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE BANK BEFORE R1. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(Rt.) 365/04/CO-OP. DATED 28.6.2004 PASSED BY R1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- ------------------------------------------ NIL. - TRUE COPY - Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21997 of 2004-R --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Respondents 3 and 4 are employees in the service of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent claimed that she is senior to the 4th respondent and is entitled to preferential promotion as the Secretary of the Society. The petitioner-Bank, however, retained the 4th respondent as Secretary-in-charge. Certain complaints were filed by the 3rd respondent before the 2nd respondent alleging that she has been harassed by threatened disciplinary proceedings. The 2nd respondent, as per the impugned order, directed that she shall not be harassed, but shall be permitted to do her duties and responsibilities. The petitioner carried an appeal against that order to the Government. That has been rejected. Hence this writ petition. 2. The 3rd respondent is not represented by counsel. 3. The 4th respondent, through counsel, stands only to abide by the lawful directions of the petitioner, who is the employer. 4. A reading of the impugned orders would show that they tend to stand in the way of any disciplinary action that the petitioner may take against the 3rd respondent, even if they propose to do so. That cannot be. But, at the same time, it has also to be noticed WP(C).No.21997 of 2004 - 2 - that if the 3rd respondent has any legitimate entitlement for preferential treatment in the matter of promotion, that ought to have been considered. Any way, continued retention of a person for years together as one in-charge of the Secretary of an Urban Co-operative Society is not what is contemplated within the frame work of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules. 5. Having found that the impugned orders tend to impinge upon the petitioner to initiate any disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, those orders are quashed, however, clarifying that the mere quashing of those orders shall not form the foundation to initiate any proceedings against the 3rd respondent unless there are grounds to do so on specific counts of indiscipline. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan Judge vku/-