IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26099 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.M. PAULOSE, S/O.MATHEW, PRESIDENT, KIZHAKOMBU KSHEEROTHPADAKA CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.NO.E 258(D), KIZHAKOMBU POST, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 662. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SANTHOSH JOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-30. 2. SHRI.GEORGE KURIAN, LABORATORY ASSISTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION), KIZHAKOMBU KSHEEROTHPADAKA CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.NO.E 258(D) KIZHAKOMBU POST, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 662. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 26099 OF 2010 J ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th August, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the President of a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the 'Act' for short) and the Rules thereunder. The second respondent was working as the Laboratory Assistant of the petitioner. He was also put in charge of the duties of the Secretary from 30/7/2005 onwards. According to the petitioner, various acts of falsification of accounts, misappropriation of money etc took place during the period that the second respondent was in charge. The managing committee therefore initiated disciplinary action against the second respondent and an enquiry was conducted. However, according to the petitioner the Enquiry Officer went wrong and entered a finding that there was no material to substantiate two of the charges against the second respondent. 2. The managing committee therefore rejected the enquiry report and ordered a fresh enquiry to be conducted and appointed another Enquiry Officer. However, the second enquiry was challenged by the second respondent by filing Ext.P2 petition WPC 26099/2010 2 before the first respondent. The petition was contested by the petitioner and the matter was heard on 9/6/2010. However, the petitioner complains that no orders have been passed thereon, till date. Therefore, the petitioner prays for the issue of appropriate directions for passing final orders on Ext.P2 on an early date. The learned senior Govt. Pleader has no objection to such a direction being issued. 3. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass final orders on Ext.P2, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the authority for compliance with the above directions. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 26099/2010 3