IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2224 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25903/2009 Dated 15/09/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ P.J.CHACKO, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.JACOB, RESIDING AT PITTAPILLIL HOUSE, KADAVOOR P.O., POTHANIKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE KADAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1882, KADAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, KADAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1882, KADAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. K.K.SALI, CHAIRMAN, SUB COMMITTEE, KADAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1882, KADAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM. 5. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION (C) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.G.ANEETHA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A.No.2224 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. Appellant is the petitioner. Petitioner approached this court aggrieved by the conduct of disciplinary proceedings, more particularly the procedure adopted in the matter. The crux of the contention is that the petitioner was not given sufficient or even reasonable opportunity to effectively participate in the proceedings. It is submitted that an application for adducing proper evidence was turned down. The further submission is that the petitioner is close to his retirement and the veiled motive on the part of the first respondent is to somehow impose a severe punishment on the petitioner by conducting the disciplinary proceedings even irregularly. The learned single Judge declined to interfere with the matter holding that this is not the stage for the court to interfere. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge. However, we make it clear that it will be open to the appellant/petitioner to take all available W.A.No.2224 of 2009 -:2:- contentions at the appropriate stage including the contention that the petitioner has suffered prejudice and injustice in view of the hasty and irregular proceedings adopted by the first respondent or the enquiry officer. Without prejudice to such liberty, this writ appeal is dismissed. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------- W.A.No.2224 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 8th October, 2009