IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 19362 of 2007(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- G.JANARDANA PILLAI, MANAGER (RTD) ARACKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, VALAKOM BRANCH, NOW RESIDING AT SAI KRISHNA, PODIYATTU VILA, VALAKAM, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR, SRI.P.BANI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ARACKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., 1858, EDAVA P.O., VALAKOM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, KOLLAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. W.P.(C). NO.19362/2007-E: *ADDL.R4. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY PENSION BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. *ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25/10/07 IN I.A. 11233/2007. BY R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA, ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, ADV. ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.19362/2007-E: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 09/06/06 TO THE MEMO OF CHARGE DTD. 18/05/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT IN WHICH ENQUIRY OFFICER HAD WRITTEN THE SENTENCE IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE MEMO CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DTD. 18/05/2006 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 05/01/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD. 20/01/2007. //TRUE COPY// prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.19362 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a former employee of the first respondent. The employer initiated certain disciplinary proceedings. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. According to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer drew up in his own handwriting, a letter, which the petitioner later on signed, by which, the petitioner is shown to have admitted the charges. He now refutes that. His case is that the so called admission is vitiated and cannot be acted upon. What ever consequences has followed on the enquiry report, could be subjected to arbitration if the petitioner has disputes about it. Not only that, it would be inappropriate for this Court to embark upon an enquiry as to the sustainability of the so called admission of the petitioner. I have also noticed that the Enquiry Officer is not a party to this writ petition. The question of the Pension Board granting the pension would depend upon the conclusion of proceedings. WPC.19362/07 Page numbers In the aforesaid circumstances, without expressing anything on merits, this writ petition is dismissed, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy under Section 67 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.