IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24763 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ G.SURENDRAN G.S.LAND, PARALEYAGRI, THOKKAD P.O.,VARKALA BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES TRIVANDRUM 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES TRIVANDRUM 3. CHEMMARUTHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, REP. BY SECRETARY, PANAYARA P.O. VARKALA R1, R2 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.24763 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Having regard to the nature of the order being issued hereunder, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with, preserving their right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. 3. Petitioner, an employee of the third respondent, was placed under suspension on certain counts of indiscipline. He was proceeded against and the disciplinary proceedings concluded against him. That was set aside by the arbitration court as per Ext.P13. 4. In the mean while, certain other allegations were made referable to his alleged unauthorised absence. He was placed WPC.24763/08 Page numbers under suspension. According to him, such continued suspension is beyond the statutory period prescribed by the relevant rules. On the infraction of the statutory rule in that regard, the resultant situation would be an encroachment into the right of the petitioner to have his suspension revoked. That may be a fit case where the Joint Registrar would consider whether the supervisory jurisdiction or his power under Rule 176 requires to be exercised de hors the existence of an otherwise statutory remedy under Section 69 of the Act. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the second respondent will take up Ext.P15, hear the petitioner and the third respondent and take a decision thereon, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment or a copy of this writ petition, whichever is later. The plea of the petitioner that Ext.P13 has become final would also be considered. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.18/8.