IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33709 of 2004(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.M.KOYAMU, SECRETARY PANTHALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F.1651, P.O.KADAMBODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KOTTATHUDI HOUSE, CHIRAYIL P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. . RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), MALAPPURAM. 3. PANTHALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F.1651, P.O.KADAMBODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE PRESIDENT, PANTHALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F.1651, P.O.KADAMBODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.HARIDAS FOR R3,4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED HASHIM FOR R1 AND R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.33709/04 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT 12.12.1998 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE. EXT.P1(a): TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT 12.12.1998 ATTACHED TO EXT.P1. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT 22.10.2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF GOVT.ORDER DT.28.2.2003 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 24.11.2003 IN WPC NO.17602/2003 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 1.1.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT 2.1.2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT 7.1.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DT 14.1.2004 SENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 2.4.2004 IN WA NO.304/2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 3.4.2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 4.5.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 11.5.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE BANK. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL PETITION DT 2.6.2004 FILED BY THE BANK BEFORE THE GOVT. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT 24.6.2004 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. WPC NO.33709/04 -2- EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 26TH JULY, 2004 IN WPC NO.20985/2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O(RT) NO.600/04/CO-OP. DT 28.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT 9.9.2004 ISSUED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 20.1.1999 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK. EXT.P18(a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 20.1.1999 PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT 1ST NOVEMBER, 2004 IN WA NO.1361/2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXTS. OF R3 EXT.R3(1): TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION DT 26.12.94 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(2): TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION DT 1.3.95 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(3): TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT 6.6.95 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(4): TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION DT 31.8.95 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(4a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 31.8.95 ISSUED BY DRO.O.P.KUNJALANKUTTY OF KONDOTTY TO THE PETITIONER AND SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXT.R3(4). EXT.R3(5): TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION DT 11.9.1995 COMMUNICATED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(6): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 18.10.1995 ISSUED TO THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, INDIAN SYSTEMS OFMEDICINES, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(7): TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 25.6.95 SENT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(8): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 6.11.95 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINES, MALAPPURAM TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. WPC NO.33709/04 -3- EXT.R3(9): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 27.11.95 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINES, MALAPPURAM TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(10): TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION DT 29.11.95 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(10a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 29.11.1995 ISSUED BY DR.C.RAVEENDRAN,ARAYA VAIDYA SALA, VAIDYARATNAM, KADAMBODE TO THE petitioner AND SUBMITTED ALONG WI TH EXT.R3(10) EXT.R3(11): TRUE COPY OF CHARGE MEMO DT 22.1.96 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN, DISCIPLINARY ACTION COMMITTEE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(12): TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT 6.2.1996 TO EXT.R3(11) CHARGE MEMO, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(13): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 18.5.1996 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(14): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 18.5.1996 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, AL AMEEN AYURVEDIC NURSING HOME, ARAVANKARA, MALAPPURAM TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(14a): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF POSTING FOR HAVING SENT EXT.R3(14) LETTER TO THE PTITIONER. EXT.R3(15): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 29.5.96 SENT BY AL AMEEN AYURVEDIC NURSING HOME, ARAVANKARA, POOKKOTTUR TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(16): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 26.5.1996 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE MEDICAL BOARD, AL AMEEN AYURVEDIC NURSING HOME, ARAVANKARA. EXT.R3(17): TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION DT 29.5.96 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(17a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 26.5.96 ISSUED BY DR.K.A.ABOOBACKER, ERANAD CLINIC TO THE PETITIONER AND SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXT.R3(17). EXT.R3(18): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 20.6.1996 ISSUED BY DR.O.M.AHAMMED, CHIEF PHYSICIAN, AL AMEEN AYURVEDIC NURSING HOME, ARAVANKARA, POOKKOTTUR, MALAPPURAM TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(19): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 20.6.96 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER. WPC NO.33709/04 -4- EXT.R3(20): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 26.6.96 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(21): TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION DT 29.6.96 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(21a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 26.6.96 ISSUED BY DR.K.A.ABOOBACKER OF KONDOTTY TO THE PETITIONER AND SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXT.R3(21). EXT.R3(22): TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION DT 29.8.96 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(22a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 31.8.96 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, KEEZHATTOOR, MALAPPURAM TO THE PETITIONER AND SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXT.R3 (22). EXT.R3(23): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 23.9.96 SUBMITTED BY MR.ADOT CHANDRAN, ONE OF the DIRECTORS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(24): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 28.9.96 ISSUED BY THE MEDICLA BOARD CONSTITUTED AT AL AMEEN AYURVEDIC NURSING HOME, ARAVANKARA, POOKKOTTUR TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(25): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 28.9.96 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(25a): TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER FO RHVING RECEIVED EXT.R3(25) ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(25b): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF POSTING DT 30.9.96 ISSUED BY THE POTAL AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM FOR HAVING SENT COPY OF EXT.R3(25) TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(26): TRU COPY OF LETTER DT 7.10.96 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(27): TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION DT 30.10.96 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(27a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 26.10.1996 ISSUED BY DR.MUJEEBU RAHMAN E.M. SHANTHI CLINIC OTHUKKUNKAL TO THE PETITIONER AND SENT ALONG WITH EXT.R3(27). EXT.R3(28): TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION DT 30.11.96 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. WPC NO.33709/04 -5- EXT.R3(28a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 29.11.96 ISSUED BY DR.K.M.ARFA, P.K.M.HOSPITAL, PANDIKKAD TO THE PTITIOENR AND SENT ALONG WITH EXT.R3(28). EXT.R3(29): TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION DT 15.1.97 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(29a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 8.1.97 ISSUED BY THE CIVIL SURGEON, TALUK HEADQUARTERS HOSPITAL, PERINTHALMANNA TO THE PETITIONER AND SENT ALONG WITH EXT.R3 (29). EXT.R3(30): TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION DT 15.3.97 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(30a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 12.3.97 ISSUED BY DR.K.V.KRIHNAN, CIVIL SURGEON, TALUK HEADQUARTERS HOSPITAL, PERINTHALMANNA TO THE PETITIONER AND SENT ALONG WITH EXT.R3 (30). EXT.R3(31): TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION DT 15.5.97 SENT BY THE PTITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(31a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 12.5.97 ISSUED BY DR.C.SAIDALIKUTTY, ASSISTANT SURGEON, TIRUNAVAYA. EXT.R3(32): TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION DT 14.7.97 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(32a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 8.7.97 ISSUED BY DR.P.K.KUNHEEDU, NANNAMBRA TO THE PETITIONER AND SENT ALONG WITH EXT.R3(32). EXT.R3(33): TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION DT 29.12.97 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(33a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 26.12.97 ISSUED BY DR.K.MOHAMMED NAHA, NAHAS HOSPITAL, PARAPPANANGADI TO THE PETITIONER AND SENT ALONG WITH EXT.R3(33). EXT.R3(34): TRUE COPY OF LEVE APPLICATION DT 28.2.98 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(34a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 24.2.98 ISSUED BY DRI.P.ABOOBACKER, MEDICAL OFFICER GOVT.HOMOEO DISPENSARY PARAPPUR TO THE PETITIONER AND SENT ALONG WITH EXT.R3(34). EXT.R3(35): TRUE COPY OF LEVE APPLICATION DT 30.04.98 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. WPC NO.33709/04 -6- EXT.R3(35a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 27.4.98 ISSUED BY ANOTHER DOCTOR FROM MANNARKKAD TO THE PETITIONER AND SENT ALONG WITH EXT.R3(35). EXT.R3(36): TRUE COPY OF LEVE APPLICATION DT 31.07.98 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(36a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 26.07.98 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER FROM MANNARKKAD TO THE PETITIONER AND SENT ALONG WITH EXT.R3(36). EXT.R3(37): TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES DT 23.9.98 ISSUED BY THE DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY COMMITTEE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(38): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 26.9.98 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHAIR PERSON, DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY COMMITTEE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK, BY REGISTERED POST WITH ACK/DUE. EXT.R3(39): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 9.10.98 ISSUED BY THE CHAIR PERSON, DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY COMMITTEE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(40): TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT 12.10.98 TO EXT.R3(37) MEMO OF CHARGES SENT BY THE PETITIONER to the CHAIR PERSON, DISCIPOINARY ENQUIRY COMMITTEE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK. EXT.R3(41): TRUE COPY OF LEAVE APPLICATION DT 31.10.98 SENTBY THE PTITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(41a): TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT 23.10.98 ISSUED BY DR.P.UNNIKRISHNAN FROM MANJERI TO THE PETITIONER AND SENT ALONG WITH EXT.R3(41). EXT.R3(42): TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT 11.11.98 ISSUED BY THE CHAIR PERSON, DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY COMMITTEE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(43): TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT 19.11.98 TO EXT.R3(42) SHOW CAUSE NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHAIR PERSON, DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY COMMITTEE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 33709 OF 2004 (K) ===================== Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T On 26/1/76, petitioner was appointed as the Secretary of the 3rd respondent, a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. He continued in that post and while so, he applied for leave on medical grounds for the period from 27/12/94 till 28/2/95. Leave was granted and on expiry of the said period, on an application made by the petitioner, leave was extended till 31/5/95. Application made for further extension of the leave was rejected and the petitioner remained on unauthorised absence. 2. On the aforesaid misconducts, memo of charges was issued and reply was also filed. However, without conducting any enquiry, based on Ext.P1(a) resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the 3rd respondent, by Ext.P1 order dated 12/12/98, petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by Ext.P1(a), petitioner moved the 2nd respondent seeking to rescind the resolution invoking Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. Parties were heard and by Ext.P2 order dated 22/10/2001, WPC 33709/04 :2 : 2nd respondent rescinded Ext.P1(a) resolution mainly for the reason that the dismissal was without enquiry as required under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The society filed an appeal before the Government as provided for under Section 83 of the Act and by Ext.P3 order dated 28/2/2003, the Government allowed the appeal. 3. Challenging Ext.P3 order, the petitioner approached this Court and filed WP(C) No.17602/2003. One of the prayers made was to direct the society to implement the order of the 2nd respondent and reinstate him in service with back wages. By Ext.P4 judgment rendered on 24/11/2003, this Court allowed the writ petition, para 3 and 4 of the judgment being relevant, reads as under: 3. The procedure prescribed under Rule 198(2) in the matter of disciplinary action against an employee of a Co-operative Society is mandatory. Any violation of the said Rule will result in the invalidation of the action taken against the delinquent employee. Going by Exts.P16 and P17, it is crystal clear that no enquiry was held into the charges levelled against the petitioner. Since he denied the allegations against him by submitting a reply, it was obligatory for the Bank to hold an enquiry into those charges. 4. In view of the above position, Ext.P17 is quashed. But, I think, having regard to the facts of the case, liberty should be given to the Bank to proceed against WPC 33709/04 :3 : the delinquent employee afresh. The same is granted. 4. Thus, for non compliance with Rule 198, Ext.P3 order was set aside and the 2nd respondent's order was upheld. At the same time, liberty was given to the Society to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner. It is to be noticed that despite a specific prayer that was made, no order directing reinstatement or for payment of back wages was passed in the said judgment. Petitioner thereupon moved the Bank and also the 2nd respondent by filing Exts.P5 and P6 for reinstatement in service. The 2nd respondent appears to have issued notice to the Bank by Ext.P7 and the Bank by Ext.P8 requested the 2nd respondent that in view of their decision to prefer an appeal against Ext.P4 judgment, the matter be deferred. In the meanwhile, the Bank filed WA No.304/04 and by Ext.P9 judgment, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal, where again it was clarified that it will be open to the society to hold a fresh enquiry against the petitioner and that in case the petitioner does not appear before the enquiry officer, it will be open to the management to proceed ex parte. 5. Once the judgment was rendered as above, the WPC 33709/04 :4 : petitioner again submitted Ext.P10 representation requesting the 2nd respondent to order his reinstatement. After considering the objections raised by the Bank, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P11 order dated 4/5/2004 directing the Managing Committee of the Bank to implement Ext.P2 order with liberty to proceed against the workman afresh as permitted in Exts. P4 and P9 judgments. According to the petitioner, on the strength of Ext.P11, he reported for duty on 11/5/2004, but was not permitted to resume duties. While so, the Bank filed Ext.P13 appeal against Ext.P11 before the Government as provided under Section 83 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, in which Government passed Ext.P14 order staying the operation of Ext.P11. 6. Ext.P14 order was challenged by the petitioner in WP (C) No.20985/2004, which was disposed of by Ext.P15 judgment directing the Government to dispose of Ext.P13 appeal on an expeditious basis. Meanwhile, in pursuance to the liberty granted in Exts.P4 and P9 judgments, the Bank appointed an Enquiry Officer, who issued Ext.P17 notice scheduling the enquiry. At about that stage, Ext.P16 order was passed by the Government disposing of Ext.P13 appeal filed by the Bank against Ext.P11, WPC 33709/04 :5 : taking the view that since the Bank is at liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioner, and as the Bank had already initiated action in compliance thereof, there is no necessity to permit the petitioner to join duty. The Bank was accordingly ordered to complete the disciplinary proceedings and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. At that stage, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 19/11/2004, praying for quashing Ext.P16 to the extent it directs that the petitioner need not be reinstated and for a direction to reinstate him in service with back wages. On 22/11/2004, while admitting this writ petition, this Court passed an interim order restraining the Bank from continuing the enquiry, before reinstating the petitioner in service with back wages and subject to the result of the writ petition. This order is still in force. 7. When the matter was taken up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner contended that since Exts.P1 and P1(a) were set aside by Ext.P4 judgment of the learned Single Judge, which was confirmed in Ext.P9 judgment of the Division Bench and as the petitioner was not at any time, placed under suspension, he WPC 33709/04 :6 : continues as an employee of the 3rd respondent Bank, who is prevented from discharging his duties. According to the petitioner, therefore he is entitled to have the enquiry pursuant to Exts.P4 and P9 concluded on an expeditious basis and at the same time paid back wages for the period from 1/1/96. Counsel for the petitioner attempted to draw support of this proposition referring to Ext.P19 judgment of this Court in WA 1361/2004 and also the Apex Court judgment in Managing Director, ECIL v. B.Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727}. He also referred me to the judgment of the Apex Court in Devendra Pratap v. State of Uttar Pradesh(AIR (1962) SC 1334) to contend that if an employee is kept out of service for reasons not attributable to him, he is entitled to be paid monetary benefits on reinstatement. Reference was also made to the judgment in Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar and another v. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samithi and another(2001(4) SLR 570), where according to the counsel, when enquiry was set aside, wages were ordered to be paid. 8. On the other hand, counsel for the Bank disputed the claim of the petitioner relying on Exts.P4 and P9 judgments. WPC 33709/04 :7 : According to the counsel it was on account of the unauthorised absence of the petitioner that the Bank charge sheeted him. It was contended that while the position was as above, the petitioner had filed WP(C) No.17602/2003, in which Ext.P4 judgment was rendered by the learned Single Judge. Counsel points out that although in that writ petition also, the petitioner has made a prayer for reinstatement with back wages on the allegation that he was kept out without suspension, this Court did not grant the said relief. It is is stated that on the other hand, this Court directed completion of fresh proceedings against the petitioner, which though initiated, was prevented by the petitioner himself by approaching this Court with this writ petition and obtaining an order dated 22/11/2004. Therefore, the Bank pleads that they are not liable to pay back wages to the petitioner as claimed. Counsel also contends that even in a case where dismissal is set aside for not holding enquiry or for other such technical reasons, the employee is not entitled to back wages and relied on the Apex Court judgment in Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Mariyadit v. Jagdishchandra and others (2001 AIR SCW 922) WPC 33709/04 :8 : 9. Fact remains that petitioner has not been granted leave beyond 31/5/95 and thereafter he has not resumed duties also. He was terminated by Ext.P1(a) resolution of the Bank. That resolution was passed without an enquiry and in violation of Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. That resolution was rescinded by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P2 and that decision was confirmed by this Court in Ext.P4 and the said judgment was confirmed by Ext.P9 also. Once termination is set aside on technical reasons, the Bank is entitled to continue the disciplinary proceedings from the stage where it has gone wrong. In this case, that liberty has been expressly given to the Bank both in Exts.P4 and P9 judgments. Therefore, the Bank is entitled to continue the disciplinary action, for which it has appointed an enquiry officer, who issued Ext.P17 notice to the petitioner. 10. Almost an identical issue has been considered by the Apex Court in Managing Director, Ecil v. B.Karunakar {(1993) 4 SCC 727}, where it has been held as follows. Where after following the above procedure, the Court/Tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty tothe authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing WPC 33709/04 :9 : the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. If the employee succeeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement and to what benefits, if any and the extent of the benefits, he will be entitled. The reinstatement made as a result of the setting aside of the inquiry for failure to furnish the report, should be treated as a reinstatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more, where such fresh inquiry is held. That will also be the correct position in law. 11. The aforesaid principle laid down by the Apex Court therefore make it abundantly clear that once dismissal is set aside, Bank is liable to reinstate the petitioner in service. 12. In so far as the monetary claim now raised by the petitioner also, in my view, the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment can be made applicable. 13. As already stated, the reinstatement of the petitioner is with liberty to the Bank to continue disciplinary action. The Bank also has the liberty to decide whether the workman should be placed under suspension or be continued in service. In either case, the ultimate outcome of the enquiry will have an impact on WPC 33709/04 :10 : the monetary claim of the petitioner. Therefore, it will be premature to decide on that claim at this stage. 14. It is directed that for the aforesaid purpose, the employee shall be reinstated and it is open to the Bank to decide whether to allow the employee to continue in office or to place him under suspension. The enquiry shall be concluded with notice to him and as expeditiously as possible and a decision taken at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, a final decision on the monetary claim raised by the petitioner shall also be taken without any further delay. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp