IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22491 of 2010(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- AHAMAD KUTTY, S/O.KHADER HAJI, PATTANATHU VEEDU, PANDIKKADU.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 521. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KARUVARAKUNDU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.F 1191, KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 523. 2. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE KARUVARAKUNDU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.F 1191, KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 523. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), MALAPPURAM. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION SUB COMMITTEE, THE KARUVARAKUNDU SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD., NO.F 1191, KARUVARAKUNDU.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-676 523. 5. P.ABDU SALAM, ADVOCATE, PERINTHALMANNA, DOMESTIC ENQUIRY OFFICER THE KARUVARAKUNDU SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD., NO.F 1191, KARUVARAKUNDU.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.22491/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DT. 15.12.07 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT. 17.2.09. P3:- COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE CHARGE MEMO DTD. 20.3.09. P4:- COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 7.7.10. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 15.7.10 TO R4. P6:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 14./7.10 TO R4. P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 9.11.09TO R5. P8:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 9.11.09 TO R2. P9:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 1.7.09 BFORE R5. P10:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 1.7.09 BEFORE R5. P11:- COPY OF THE PETITION U/R. 176 DTD. 14.7.10 BEFORE R3. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 22491 OF 2010 J ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 proceedings by which the Chairman of the first respondent society has directed him to show cause why the punishment as proposed therein should not be imposed on him pursuant to a report of enquiry obtained by the said authority. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to consider and dispose of Ext.P11 petition filed by him seeking to rescind a resolution in exercise of the power under Rule 176 of the Co- operative Societies Rules, 1969 (the 'Rules' for short). 2. The petitioner was suspended from service on the basis of certain allegations on 15/12/2007. He continues to be on suspension ever since. A memo of charges and statement of allegations were served on the petitioner and a domestic enquiry was conducted into the allegations raised. According to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report only on 6/7/2010. Thereupon a show cause notice proposing to impose a punishment of dismissal was issued to him on 7/7/2010 itself granting him only 7 days time to reply to the same. The said show WPC 22491/2010 2 cause notice is Ext.P4. According to the petitioner, he has time only up to 14/7/2010 to reply to the same. The allegation of the petitioner is that the proceedings against him are being expedited only for the reason that he is to retire from service on 31/7/2010. Therefore, he alleges that the object of the respondents is to dismiss the petitioner from service on the eve of his retirement. In such an event, it is contended that the petitioner's right of appeal provided by Rule 198(4) would also become superfluous in the sense that, after his retirement, the petitioner would be disabled from claiming the relief of reinstatement in service. Therefore, it is contended that the procedure adopted by the respondents is intended to deny to the petitioner the valuable right of appeal that is provided in the Rules. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings were delayed for no fault of his and that the society had been deliberately protracting the proceedings throughout. 3. The petitioner also contends that he has not been supplied with copies of the supporting documents that form part of the enquiry report that accompanies Ext.P4 communication. On the above grounds, the petitioner seeks a stay of all further proceedings based on or pursuant to Ext.P4 show cause notice and WPC 22491/2010 3 a further direction to the third respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P11. 4. Adv. V.G.Arun who appears for the first respondent submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are very serious and the delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings against him was due to the fact that the records in the case were voluminous, running into hundreds of pages. Ext.P4 show cause notice could not be served on the petitioner earlier only because he was evading the service thereof. It is submitted by the counsel that no action has been taken pursuant to the enquiry report that is part of Ext.P4 and only a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. It is also submitted that what is stated in Ext.P11 is to cancel Ext.P4 and not a resolution of the society. The reliefs that are sought for in Ext.P11 are incapable of being granted by the third respondent. Therefore, it is submitted that no direction to dispose of Ext.P11 may be issued to the said authority. 5. The learned Senior Govt. Pleader Shri. Muhammed Hashim also supports the contentions of the first respondent and points out that Ext.P11 is not maintainable either in law or fact. Ext.P11 is dated 14/7/2010 and therefore, after receiving the same, the said authority has not even had sufficient time to consider the various WPC 22491/2010 4 allegations therein. For the above reasons, it is prayed that this writ petition may be dismissed. I have heard Mr. N.K.Subramanian who appears for the petitioner, Mr. V.G.Arun and Mr.T.R.Harikumar who appear for the first respondent and Mr. Muhammed Hashim, Senior Govt. Pleader in the matter. I have gone through the records of the case and have also considered the rival contentions anxiously. 6. The petitioner is an employee who is remaining under suspension. A domestic enquiry has been conducted into the allegations against him and the report accompanies Ext.P4. A copy of the report has been furnished to the petitioner with a communication directing him to show cause why the punishment proposed therein should not be imposed on him and he has been granted time to submit his objections in writing as well as in person. No punishment has been imposed on the petitioner and the matter is only at the stage of consideration of the enquiry report. Immediately, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P11 before the third respondent seeking to rescind the proceedings issuing the show cause notice and setting aside the enquiry report. Since Ext.P11 is pending consideration before the third respondent, it is up to the said authority to consider the same and to pass WPC 22491/2010 5 appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. I am sure that the third respondent will take appropriate action in the matter expeditiously. Since Ext.P4 is only a communication directing the petitioner to show cause, I do not think there is justification for any interference with the same at this stage. The contention that since the petitioner is due to retire on 31/7/2010, in the event of his dismissal from service he would not be able to claim reinstatement as a relief in his appeal is not a ground to abandon all further proceedings against him, pursuant to Ext.P4. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order that is passed pursuant to Ext.P4 he certainly has the remedy, to challenge the same in appeal. His reliefs in the appeal would have to be worked out in accordance with the circumstances existing at that time. I do not find any grounds to entertain this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 22491/2010 6