IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1034 of 2007 ------ ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DT.26.2.007 IN WPC.38127/2003 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN THE WP ---------------------- K.M.KHALID, PRESIDENT, PANAVALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.901, POOCHAKKAL P.O., PANAVALLY. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE & ADV.SRI. T. RAMPRASAD UNNI. RESPONDENT(S)// RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SMT. C.S.SANTHAMMA, SREVALSOM VEEDU, PANAVALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 & 2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. A.G. ANEETHA. R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN & SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON 23/06/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.A. No.1034 of 2007 ------------------------------------ Dated this, the 23rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was the writ petitioner. He is the President of the Panavally Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. 901, Poochakkal P.O.. The writ petition was filed by him challenging Ext.P6 order of the Joint Registrar and Ext.P8 order of the Government affirming Ext.P6. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The third respondent was the Secretary of the appellant's Bank. She was placed under suspension and was served with Ext.P1 charge-sheet dated 29.7.1998, alleging misappropriation of funds of the Society. The method adopted by her for misappropriation was to allow the account holders to draw excess amount without there being sufficient funds in their accounts. The enquiry officer found her guilty and submitted Ext.P2 report. The Sub-Committee considered the report and passed Ext.P3 order dismissing the third respondent from service. The said decision was modified by the appeal WA No.1034/07 - 2 - committee, as per Ext.R3(a) resolution dated 6.7.1999, whereby the punishment of dismissal was converted into one of reversion to the lower post. The third respondent filed Ext.P5 representation before the Joint Registrar praying for a direction to the appellant's bank to implement Ext.R3(a). This court directed the Joint Registrar to consider Ext.P5 representation. While considering that representation, the Joint Registrar by Ext.P6 proceedings set aside the disciplinary proceedings against her. The aggrieved Society filed appeal and the Government by Ext.P8 order affirmed Ext.P6. In the above factual background, challenging Exts.P6 and P8, the present writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the bank to implement Ext.P3(a) resolution. There was a direction to re-instate the third respondent demoting her from the post of Secretary. There was also a direction to pass appropriate orders regarding regularisation of the period the employee was out of service. The writ petitioner has preferred this writ appeal, feeling aggrieved by the said judgment. 3.We heard Sri K.Ramakumar, learned Senior Counsel for WA No.1034/07 - 3 - the appellant, learned Special Government Pleader Smt. Aneetha for respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri.Harikumar for the third respondent. We notice that though the learned Single Judge has not in so many words said that Exts.P6 and P8 are quashed, the effect of the judgment under appeal is that those orders need not be implemented. Learned Single Judge has only directed to implement Ext.R3(a) appellate order of the appeal committee of the appellant society. Therefore, the relief claimed by the appellant in the writ petition has been granted by the learned Single Judge. The Society cannot be said to be aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge to implement its own decision. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. DK. (True copy)