IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15184 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.RAJAN, BRANCH MANAGER, (NOW UNDER SUSPENSION), CHAYAM SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHAYAM SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD.1514, CHETTACHAL P.O., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.15184 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was working as a Branch Manager of the 2nd respondent Bank. Following certain allegations of misconduct committed, he was placed under suspension and that was rescinded by the Joint Registrar as per Ext.P1. Although an appeal was filed by the President, the Government by Ext.P2(a) declined stay of Ext.P1. Accordingly, he was reinstated in service. 2. Thereafter, Ext.P3 memo of charges was issued to which Ext.P4 explanation was submitted by the petitioner. An enquiry was conducted into the misconducts alleged. Finally based on the report finding the petitioner gulty, Ext.P5 show case notice imposing punishment of reversion was served on him to which, Ext.P6 explanation was submitted. Thereafter, by Ext.P8, he was reverted as an WP(c).No.15184/09 2 Accountant. It is challenging Ext.P8 that the writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Ext.P1, the order passed by the Joint Registrar and contended that the findings in Ext.P1 are to the effect that the Petitioner is not guilty. On this basis he submits that there is no good and sufficient reason as provided in Rule 198 of the Co-operative Societies Rules warranting imposition of reversion as per ExtP8. 4. In so far as the findings in Ext.P1 are concerned, those were rendered on the application made by the petitioner for rescinding the resolution placing him under suspension. It would appear that on receipt of the application, the Joint Registrar obtained a report and it is based on the contents of the report that such findings were arrived at. The findings in Ext.P1 cannot be taken as exonerating the Petitioner of the misconduct and for that reason it is not open to the petitioner to say that the disciplinary authority was WP(c).No.15184/09 3 incompetent to impose punishment on him. Now that, Ext.P8 is an order of punishment has been issued by the disciplinary authority, it is up to the petitioner to pursue the matter availing of the remedies that are available in law. Without prejudice to that right and leaving open the other contentions, the writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.15184/09 4