IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 29883 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.MOYIN, S/O.MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT MOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDUPARAMBA.PO, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MALAPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO.F.1829,P.B.NO.6, MALAPPURAM-676505, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DISCIPLINARY SUB COMMITTEE, MALAPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO.F.1829,P.B.NO.6, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, MALAPPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO.F.1829,P.B.NO.6, MALAPPURAM-676505, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R1 & 3 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R1 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.29883 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was placed under suspension from the service of a co-operative bank. Disciplinary proceedings ended in his dismissal from service. That was interfered with and ultimately the matter stood relegated. Later, the issue again reached this Court and by Ext.P19, this Court directed that the intra institutional appeal should be considered by adverting to the different contentions, including that the order of dismissal should not have been passed with retrospective operation. Ext.P21 is the appellate order now issued, holding that the appeal is unsustainable. 2. Even in Ext.P19 judgment, this Court had noticed that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy by way of arbitration by recourse to Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Notwithstanding that, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the appellate order (Ext.P21) has been WPC.29883/08 Page numbers issued without considering any of the contentions of the delinquent before the appeal committee. In this context, the respondents were asked to state as to whether the appeal was heard and whether the procedure was duly adopted. Accordingly, a counter affidavit has been placed on record producing the minutes of the appeal committee as Ext.R3(a). Taking the impugned Ext.P21 and Ext.R3(a) together, it appears to have been demonstrated that the committee of the bank deliberated on the appeal on different dates and by hearing the delinquent and even with reference to the materials, they have drawn a conclusion. While the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that all the charges have not been considered by bank into cognizance with the grounds of objections referable to each charge, learned counsel for the bank states that it is not so. According to the petitioner, many of the monetary claims against him further concluded against the bank by different decisions by arbitrators and by revisional tribunals and that therefore, it was impermissible for any charge to be levelled and sustained in disciplinary proceedings on those issues. However, it cannot be WPC.29883/08 Page numbers conceded that there are certain other charges also which include an allegation of having issued a loan in the name of the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have a case that his wife's signature has been forged and he is innocent in the matter. That is not an issue which has been concluded by any competent statutory authority. 3. The aforesaid scenario and a close reading of Exts.P21 and R3(a) tend to show that while it would not be proper to conclude the petitioner from challenging the proceedings before the competent authority under Section 69 of the KCS Act, it is quite impermissible for this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to erase Ext.P21 or to direct re-consideration of the appeal. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is closed without prejudice to contentions, clarifying that all issues are left open and that any proceedings of the petitioner, which may be invoked in terms of Section 69, will be decided untrammeled by WPC.29883/08 Page numbers anything stated herein. Having regard to the fact the petitioner is apparently on the verge of retirement, any authority who would be moved under Section 69 would consider expeditious final disposal of the matter. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.