IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19216 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P.KRISHNAPRASAD, PEON (UNDER ORDERS OF SUSPENSION), KULAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 4589, P.O.SHORANUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KULAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 4589, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, P.O.SHORANUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PALAKKAD. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19216 OF 2009 (V) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a peon in the 1st respondent Bank. In relation to a deposit that was made by one Mr.Sathyanarayanan of Tripatta Devaswom, and the receipt, the print of which was taken by the petitioner, there were certain allegations and finally Ext.P1 notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause against the same. Notice also contains an allegation that the petitioner misbehaved with the member concerned. Petitioner denied the allegations by Ext.P2 reply submitted to the President. However, by Ext.P3 order issued on 27/5/2009, he has been ordered to be placed under suspension pending disciplinary action. It is challenging Ext.P3, the writ petition is filed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations, which according to him, stands proved on account of the remittance of the amount of Rs.1000/-, which was kept in the suspense account of the Bank. It is also stated that subsequently, the account was regularised also. 3. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that on the WPC 19216/09 :2 : materials produced, this Court will not be justified in concluding that Ext.P1 or P3 do not disclose a case of misconduct. Therefore, the suspension ordered cannot be characterised as one without jurisdiction to justify interference in this proceedings. Therefore, relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. However, that does not mean that the disciplinary action and the uncertainty arising therefrom should be continued inordinately. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to expedite the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 on the production of a copy of this judgment and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months of production of a copy of this judgment, subject to the petitioner co-operating with the authorities. Needless to say that it will be open to the Managing Committee to review Exts.P3 and pass appropriate orders if they deem fit. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp