IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1929 WP(C).No. 12283 of 2007(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.J.CHACKO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, (UNDER SUSPENSION), KADAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.1882, KADAVOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB SRI.M.MOHAMMED SALIH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KADAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1882, KADAVOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM REP.BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE. 2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE KADAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1882, KADAVOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM REP.BY ITS CONVENER. 3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), ERNAKULAM. R1 2 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P(C) 12283/07 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THIRD RESPONDENT DT. 22.12.2006 EXT.P2: -DO- OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT DT. 12.1.2007 EXT.P3: -DO- OF THE INTERIM REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 13.1.2007 EXT.P4: -DO- OF THE ADDL. REPLY SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DT. 22.1.2007 EXT.P5: -DO- OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 23.2.2007 EXT.P6: -DO- OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 26.2.2007 EXT.P7: -DO- OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT. 6.3.2007 EXT.P8: -DO- OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DT. 15.3.2007 EXT.P9: -DO- OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DT. 22.3.2007 EXT.P10: -DO- OF THE RULE 176 PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DT. 26.3.2007 jj /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.12283 of 2007-K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of November, 2007. JUDGMENT The petitioner was the Secretary-in-charge of the first respondent Co-operative Bank till the elected committee was superseded. He has challenged the supersession. With the passage of time, disciplinary proceedings have culminated in his removal from service. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right, if any, of the petitioner to move appropriate statutory authorities for any relief in connection with the supersession or otherwise. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/