IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 29574 of 2007(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O KARUNAKARAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS, 'KRISHNAKRIPA', NEAR A.P.BRIDGE, THEVARA P.O., ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI-682013. CHIEF ACCOUNTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION) BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRIVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES FOR THE STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THEVARA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.E 784, THEVARA P.O., KOCHI-13, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. MR.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., ADVOCATE, (ENQUIRY OFFICER), "REVATHY" NEHRU ROAD, AYYAPPANKAVU, KOCHI-18. 5. PRESIDENT, THEVARA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.E 784, THEVARA P.O., KOCHI-13. ( BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN R3&R5 ( SMT.RESMI G. NAIR SRI.NISHIL.P.S. SRI.P.S.PRADEEP SRI.SHOJAN JACOB BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.29574/2007 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DTD. 05/01/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF RS.88,000/- BYTHE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 21/02/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP( C) NO.7205/07 DTD. 12/04/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT SOCIETY DTD. 19/03/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 29/03/2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE INTIMATION DTD. 03/04/2007 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: CIOPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REQUEST PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 18/04/2007. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE REQUEST PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 25/04/2007. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE TELEGRAM SENT BY 4TH RESPONDENT DENYING REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.14438/2007 DTD. 07/09/2007. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE REQUEST PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER ON 07/05/2007. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE REQUEST PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER ON 05/06/2007. Kss ..2/- ...2... WPC.NO.29574/2007 U EXT.P16: COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER OVER THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PRESENTING OFFICER IN THE ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.29574 of 2007 ================================== Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner is an employee of the third respondent Co-operative Society. He is facing disciplinary proceedings. An enquiry is being conducted by the fourth respondent, an advocate as the enquiry officer. The petitioner's complaint is that certain documents are not permitted to be perused. He further contends that certain departmental enquiries are also to be conducted in view of widespread allegations as are made by him. 2. It is not within the province of the High Court to interfere with the enquiry proceedings even in matters referable to public service, unless in exceptionally exceptional circumstances. In relation to a Co-operative Society, the jurisdiction would be exceptionally minimum, WPC29574/2007 -:2:- particularly when, after the amendment to the Co- operative Societies Act by Act 1/2000, any employee, who is aggrieved by the final action taken on disciplinary proceedings would be entitled to proceed for arbitration. It will not be in the interest of a Co-operative Society to hold back the enquiry proceedings or to interfere with the enquiry proceedings at every stage. In certain circumstances, such interference would also affect the delinquent. I am also not impressed by the contention of the petitioner that departmental enquiry has also to be ordered in relation to certain allegations. I am, therefore, not inclined to issue any direction for consideration of Ext.P4. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.