IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 361 of 2006(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16417/2004 Dated 23/12/2005 .................... APPELLANT/ 4TH RESPONDENT. ----------------- M.K.RAMANI, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, VELAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALLIVATTOM PO, VIA KONATHUKUNNU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & PETITIONER: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO- OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR. 3. P.K.HARIHARAN, KUMPALATH PARAMBIL, VADAKKEKKARA P.O. THRITHYPALAM, CHAKKUMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. POOMANGALM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REGD.NO.R-172. P.O. ARIPALAM, THRISSUR, 680 688, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENNY GERVASIS FOR R1 & R2 SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN FOR R3 SRI.P.V.KURIACHAN FOR R3 SRI.K.JABU BABU FOR R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO. 553 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A.Nos. 361 & 553 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. W.A.No.361/2006: The appellant is the 4th respondent in the writ petition. The 4th respondent herein was the writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The appellant was an employee of the 4th respondent bank. He was dismissed from service by the bank as per Ext.P10. The appellant filed an appeal before the Managing Committee of her Society. The appellate authority affirmed the finding of guilt of the appellant by Ext.P11, but, modified the punishment as one of compulsory retirement from service. Challenging Exts.P11, she filed Ext.P2 petition before the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies under Rule 176. The said petition was allowed by Ext.P15. All adverse orders against her from the initial order of suspension were rescinded and she was ordered W.A.No.361& 553/2006 2 to be reinstated in service. The Bank Challenged Ext.P15 by filing the present writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition. Hence this Writ Appeal. 3. The learned Single Judge interfered with the impugned order mainly on two grounds. The Joint Registrar found that the charges against her were trivial. The learned Single Judge noted that for arriving at that conclusion, no reasons are given in Ext.P15. So, it was ordered that the Joint Registrar should consider this point and pass a reasoned order. Secondly, the learned Single Judge interfered with the order of the Joint Registrar to the extent the said officer found that the order imposing punishment on her is vitiated for non-supply of many documents. The learned Single Judge held that the Joint Registrar should have entered a finding that the non-supply of document has prejudiced the delinquent and also should have given reasons for the same. Based on the above two grounds, the impugned order Ext.P15 was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Joint Registrar for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Joint Registrar among other things held that the order suspending the appellant was also bad. The W.A.No.361& 553/2006 3 learned Single Judge noted that the appellant, earlier, challenged the suspension order before the Joint Registrar unsuccessfully. Later, she moved the Government also. Both the said authorities affirmed her suspension. Therefore, in the present impugned order Joint Registrar could not have considered the validity of the suspension order, it was held. 4. We find that the learned Single Judge rightly interfered with the decision of the Joint Registrar concerning the validity of suspension of the appellant. Regarding the other two grounds, which we have already noted above, the learned Single Judge did not express any opinion on merits, but, only remanded the matter for the reconsideration of the Joint Registrar, so that, the said officer may pass a speaking order. Going by the order of the Joint Registrar, Ext.P15, we fully endorse the view taken by the learned Single Judge on the above two points. 5. But, having regard to the date of effect of the order removing the appellant from service there is some ambiguity in the judgment under appeal. We clarify that the order of compulsory retirement from service will take effect only from the date of the order and not with retrospective effect from the date W.A.No.361& 553/2006 4 of suspension. 5. Subject to the above clarification, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. 6. Both sides brought to our notice that, as permitted by this Court, during the pendency of the Writ Appeal the Joint Registrar has passed revised orders in the matter on 10.4.2006. Since the said order was subject to the result of the appeal, it was unnecessary for the parties who are aggrieved by it to challenge it. Now that we have finally disposed of the writ appeal, anyone aggrieved by that order may workout his remedy against it. W.A.No.553/2006: In view of the Annexure-A order of the Joint Registrar dated 10.4.2006, which is in favour of the appellant, this Writ Appeal is closed as infructuous. But, this will not affects the right of the contesting respondent to challenge that order. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps