IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 6062 of 2011(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.K.THOMAS, S/O.KURIAN, POTTAMEL HOUSE, POOMANTHODE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN SMT.LALIZA.T.Y. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OP. SOCIETIES, KANNUR. 2. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OP. SOCIETIES, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. ANAPANTHY SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., NO.F.1516, ANGADIKADAVU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT-670706. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, SUB COMMITTEE (DISCIPLINARY), ANAPANTHY SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., NO.F.1516, ANGADIKADAVU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670706. 5. K.A.JAISON, PRESIDENT, ANAPANTHY SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., NO.F.1516, ANGADIKADAVU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670706. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P.M. MANOJ R3 AND R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6062 of 2011(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : A COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE RELEVATN PORTION OF BYELAW OF THE SOCIETY. EXT.P2 : A COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2009 EXT.P3 : A COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2010 EXT.P4 : A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 2.9.2006 ADOPTED BY THE THEN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIETY. EXT.P5 : A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.27156/2007 DATED 12.09.2007 EXT.P6 : A COPY OF THE APPLICTION DATED 14.11.2008 SUBMITTED BY SHRI K.A. JAISON. EXT.P7 : A COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONE R AS SECRETARY-IN CHARGE OF THE SOCIETY DATED 14.11.2008 EXT.P8 : A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27.5.2009 EXT.P9 : A COPY OF THE D ECISION TAKEN BY THE BANK ON 10.12.2004 EXT.P10 : A COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 21.10.2009. EXT.P11 : A COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.12.2009., EXT.P12 : A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.11.2009. EXT.P13 A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DA TED 30.03.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a) : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(b) : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.5.2011 EXT.R3(d) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 6062 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 19th August , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is an employee of the respondent Society was suspended from service pursuant to Ext.P8 alleging certain serious misconducts pending disciplinary enquiry. Alleging that the proceedings initiated by the respondents are absolutely without any merit or bonafides and that it was initiated as part of victimization, the petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition. 2. When the matter came up for consideration on 25.02.2011, the following order was passed: “Admit. Issue urgent notice returnable in 10 days to the respondents. Post on 8.3.2011. In the meanwhile, though the enquiry can go on, the disciplinary action shall not be finalised”. W.P.(C) No. 6062 OF 2011 2 3. The respondent society has filed I.A. 13589 of 2011 seeking for permission to have the disciplinary proceedings finalised, pursuant to Ext.P10 charge memo, before 26.08.2011. The learned Counsel for the Society submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is wrong and misconceived; that the charges are quite serious; that the respondent Society has already obtained 'prior approval' of the first respondent/Joint Registrar to continue the supension of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P8, as evident from Ext. R3(a) and that the proceedings require to be taken to a logical conclusion. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides, this Court finds that the legal position with regard to staying of disciplinary proceedings has been deprecated by the Apex Court on many an occasion including the decision reported in 1999(3) SCC 679 (Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Another). In the said circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent Society to finalise the disciplinary proceedings passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, based on the materials on record, as expeditiously as W.P.(C) No. 6062 OF 2011 3 possible, at any rate within 'one month'. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything with regard to the merits involved. It is open for the petitioner to challenge the proceedings of the respondents, if he is aggrieved in any manner, by resorting to appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk