IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19790 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M.K.BHANUDEVAN NAIR, SRI MANGALATHU VEEDU, ULLANOOR KARA, KULANADA, ULLANOOR P.O, KOZHENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. MANTHUKA GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD (NO.Q.169)NOW RE-DESIGNATED AS GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.Q. 169) KULANADA P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA.REP BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2, R3 AND R4 BY SR.G.P.SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.19790 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner is a former President of the first respondent Co-operative Bank. It was alleged that the petitioner, while the President, abused his official position and mis-appropriated amounts by encashing 17 Kisan Vikas Patras with the help of one Sri.P.T.Mathai, who was the Secretary of the Bank at the relevant time. The Bank initiated arbitration proceedings and obtained an award against the petitioner. He filed a revision against the award before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. That was dismissed as per Ext.P2 on 16- 9-2002. In 2007, he challenged that revisional order and filed W.P.(C)No.31592 of 2007. That was dismissed as per Ext.P3 judgment noticing that there was inordinate delay in challenging the decision of the Tribunal. However, the concluded WPC19790/08 -:2:- findings regarding the abuse of Kisan Vikas Patras was also noticed. 2. This writ petition is filed again challenging Ext.P2 decision of the Tribunal, which, as already noticed, was issued wayback on 16-9- 2002. The ground pleaded is that there was also a vigilance case and that has resulted in acquittal, which, according to the petitioner, is an honourable one. The dichotomy of the proceedings before the Arbitrator and before the vigilance court has always to be kept in mind. The mere acquittal in criminal cases, even if it be one which clears the accused of blemish, cannot be a foundation for re-opening the proceedings for recovery of money which have become final by the force of Ext.P2 decision on the revision petition and Ext.P3 judgment in the writ petition. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that WPC19790/08 -:3:- a petition to review Ext.P2 revisional order of the Tribunal is filed, I am not expressing anything on merits or even the impact of Ext.P3 judgment on such review petition. However, I am clear in my mind that the Arbitrator, having concluded that the first respondent is entitled to recovery of certain amounts from the petitioner and that having been confirmed by the Tribunal in Ext.P2 order, which action stands affirmed by Ext.P3 judgment of this Court, no interference is called for in any manner re-opening those proceedings, that too, in this writ petition. This writ petition is hence dismissed in limine. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.