IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 14623 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.SUNIL BABU. S/O.NALINAKSHAN, AGED 39 KAMALALAYAM, PANNIVIZHA, ADOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO.OP.SOCIETIES PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. SECRETARY,PANNIVIZHA SERVICE CO.OP.BANK LTD.NO.891 ADOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA , ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN FOR R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.14623 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is presently working as Peon under the 2nd respondent, a Co-operative Society. According to the petitioner, prior to his appointment as above, he was working as Helper in the Neethi Medical Store run by Adoor Service Co-operative Bank. While so, in the audit conducted, stock deficiency was found out, which according to the petitioner, led to closure of the Medical Store and termination of his service. It is stated that the aforesaid Bank initiated ARC.No.511/02 and also ARC.No.350/05, which according to the petitioner are pending consideration before the Arbitrator. 2. It is stated that it was while so, he secured employment under the 2nd respondent. Petitioner submits that thereupon certain persons filed complaints against his appointment before the Government and that the Government issued a direction to the Joint Registrar, who in turn directed the 2nd respondent to WP(c).No.14623/08 2 terminate his service. It is stated that any such order and the proposed termination is illegal and it is on that basis that this writ petition has been filed with the following prayers. “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding the respondents 1 and 2 not to terminate the service of the petitioner from the second respondent bank as Peon on the basis of any complaint that have been received by the first respondent against the petitioner. ii. Declare that the service of the petitioner as Peon in the second respondent bank cannot be terminated on the ground that arbitration case is pending against the petitioner before the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies for recovery of loss in the stock deficit sustained by another co-operative bank namely Adoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. “ 3. Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that there is no such direction as asserted by the petitioner. If that be the factual position, the premise on which this writ petition is filed is erroneous. However, that does not mean that, for any commission or omission on the part WP(c).No.14623/08 3 of the petitioner, the competent authority is not at liberty to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. There again, any such action can only be in accordance with the service rules and governing statutory provisions. It is so clarified. With the above clarification, the writ petition is disposed of. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/