IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16673 of 2004(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- N.BALAKRISHNAN, SREEKRISHNA SADANAM, PACHAKKAL GOLF LINK ROAD, MALAPARAMBA, CALICUT 673 009. ASST.ENGINEER (RETIRED), THE KOZHIKODE BHAVANA NIRMANA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE KOZHIKODE BHAVANA NIRMANA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD.NO.F.1867, STADIUM BUILDINGS, CALICUT 673 004, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOZHIKODE. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN - R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN – R2 & R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.16673/2004 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DTD. 23/09/2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AEL/6837/2000 DTD. 6/2/2001 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DTD. 6/03/2001 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10/02/2004 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. 1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SOCIETY DTD. 3/06/99. EXT.R1(B): COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DISCIPLINARY SUB COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETY TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 14/10/99. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.16673 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Engineer in the service of the first respondent, was placed under suspension on allegations of indiscipline referable to the construction activities under his supervision. The petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet. The sub committee enquired into the allegations. Reports of the enquiry was accepted and the committee imposed the punishment of reversion by one stage, thereby the petitioner, who was an Assistant Engineer, become a Work Superintendent. He, thereafter, superannuated on 30.11.1999. The petitioner submitted a representation before the committee of the society challenging that decision. That was rejected. He filed an application before the Registrar under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter, 'the Rules' for short, to rescind the resolution. That was futile. He filed an appeal, which was also dismissed. Hence, this writ petition. WPC.16673/04 Page numbers 2. The fundamental contention of the petitioner is that in the light of Rule 198 (3) and (4) of the Rules, sub committee has the authority to impose any punishment and in such event, he would have a right of appeal to the committee of the society and such right of appeal has been deprived by the committee imposing the punishment. It is also pointed out that the petitioner could not be held in any way responsible for the alleged defects in the construction of the buildings which was entrusted to a contractor selected by the society. 3. I may notice that the punishment imposed is only reversion to the immediate lower post and it cannot be disputed that the petitioner, as the Assistant Engineer, was the person to have the supervisory control of the construction activities of the society, which is a Bhavana Nirmana Sahakarana Sangham, though the society may entrust such work to contractors. Under such circumstances and having regard to the punishment imposed, the mere fact that there may be apparent infraction of Sub Rules 3 and 4 of Rule 198 of the Rules, that by itself is insufficient for WPC.16673/04 Page numbers this Court to extend its visitorial jurisdiction under Article 226 and interfere with the findings and the punishment, particularly when the competent authority under Rule 176 and section 83 have rejected the contentions of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.21/7.