IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 29134 of 2006(R) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M.E. SAVITHRI, W/O.LATE VIJAYAN K.M., KANMANA ILLOM, MUCHUKUNNU P.O., QUILANDY. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SMT.S.AMINA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. QUILANDY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, QUILANDY. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, QUILANDY. 3. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *4.THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE © DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. *ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14/09/2007 IN IA NO. 12124/2007. ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB FOR R.1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 30336 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 29134/2006 R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 15/4/2004. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 15989/2005 DT. 18/10/2005. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R2 DT. 10/2/2006. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 6013/2006 DT. 14/08/2006. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R1 DT. 16/3/2007. EXT.P5A. COPY OF THE NOTICE BY THE R4 DT. 16/3/2007. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE R4 DT. 14/08/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL True copy Tga THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.29134 OF 2006 & 30336 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT First among the captioned matters is filed by the wife of a deceased employee of the first respondent Co-operative Bank, who was arrayed as the first accused in FIR.No.89 registered on 3.7.2003 in the Atholi Police Station, along with others, while working as Branch Manager. The petitioner is also arrayed in that case as the 6th accused. The allegation against them was that during the period from 10.5.2002 to 25.4.2003, while the first accused, petitioner's husband, was in charge of the branch, accused persons 2 to 8, ie., including the petitioner, pledged different fake ornaments and availed loans to the tune of Rs.25,18,150/-. Two months thereafter, on 22.7.2003, petitioner's husband died in a motor accident. Following directions issued by this Court in these cases, a report is filed on behalf of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Kozhikode stating that the investigation is nearly complete and the handwriting etc. have been recorded and as on the date WPC.29134/06 & 30336/07 Page numbers of the said report, i.e., 8.4.2008, the investigation conducted so far does not reveal that the 6th accused, viz., the petitioner is an accused. 2. Following the demise of her husband, the petitioner applied on 15.4.2004 for compassionate appointment in the service of the Bank in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 188 A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. The Bank, by 28.5.2005, informed the petitioner that she is not a fit person to be considered for appointment on account of her being arrayed as an accused person and that the scheme for extending such help cannot be applied to her case. Alleging that the Bank is not taking appropriate action in her case, the petitioner filed a representation before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and moved this Court. That writ petition was disposed of directing the Assistant Registrar to consider the matter after hearing the parties. The Assistant registrar issued proceedings dated 10.2.2006, taking the view that it would be appropriate for the Bank to consider the application of the petitioner for WPC.29134/06 & 30336/07 Page numbers compassionate appointment since the investigation has not come to a final stage and that any action could follow only on completion of investigation. The Bank challenged that decision before this Court, but stood relegated for a statutory appeal before the Government, which was then invoked. Resultantly, the Government issued letter dated 14.8.2007, dismissing the appeal of the Bank and directing the Bank to consider the application of the petitioner for employment assistance as envisaged in Rule 188 A of the KCS Rules. 3. The petitioner has filed W.P.(C).29134 OF 2006 seeking further directions on the allegation that the Bank is not acting on the decision of the Government. On the other hand, the Bank has filed W.P.(C).30336 OF 2007 challenging the decision of the Government and the Assistant Registrar. 4. The bench marks fixed by Rule 188 A of the KCS Rules and the governing circulars, for a person to be entitled to apply for employment on compassionate grounds are those referable to WPC.29134/06 & 30336/07 Page numbers relationship with the deceased employee, financial bench mark, dependency etc. There does not appear to be any dispute between the parties that this may be a case where such bench marks would stand satisfied by the petitioner. But the most important factor is as to whether a co-operative Bank, a financial institution, could be compelled to employ a person who was arrayed as an accused along with her husband in a case relating to cheating and misappropriation to the tune of more than Rs.25 lakhs, that too, utilising fake ornaments. The stand taken by the Bank in the decision rendered against the petitioner is that she is arrayed as an accused person. Learned counsel for the petitioner may be, to some extent, justified in stating that the Bank took all decisions against her only because she is an accused in a criminal case. But in my considered view, a very important aspect is that the statutory authorities and the writ court ought to be extremely circumspect in directing an employer, a financial institution, to provide compassionate succor to the family of a deceased employee, who himself was accused and facing proceedings, that too, on crimes referable WPC.29134/06 & 30336/07 Page numbers to, among other provisions, Section 420 IPC, on the allegation that he was the Branch Manager in charge of one of the establishments of the Bank where the misappropriation took place, by extending loans on fake transaction with fake ornaments being offered as hypothica, that too, including in the name of the petitioner, the wife of the Manager. The confidence that a commercial institution ought to have in its employees is not a matter which could be diluted. Co-operative Banks deal with public funds. They are financial institutions. The Bank had rejected the application of the petitioner for compassionate employment. Though the Bank did not pivotedly say that they are refusing the appointment because the claim is on behalf of the family of an employ who committed the offence against the Bank, it is inappropriate for the writ court to come to the aid of the petitioner and issue further directions. It was wholly impermissible within the framework of Sections 66, 83, Rule 188 A or any other enabling provisions, either for the Assistant Registrar exercising the powers of the Registrar or for the Government to sit in appeal to come to the aid of the petitioner. WPC.29134/06 & 30336/07 Page numbers Such decision contained in the orders impugned in W.P(C).30336 of 2007 are totally illegal and beyond jurisdiction. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, while the petitioner in W.P.(C). 29134 OF 2006 is not entitled to any relief as sought for in that writ petition, the orders impugned in W.P(C).30336 of 2007 by the Bank are irrational, illegal and in excess of jurisdiction. They are arbitrary and liable to be set aside. In the result, while dismissing W.P.(C).29134 OF 2006, W.P (C).30336 of 2007 is allowed quashing the decisions impugned therein. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.4/6.