IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1347 of 2007(I) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ GIRIJA DEVI, SECRETARY (UNDER ORDERS OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT) PAZHUVIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.126, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB SRI.B.MANIMOHAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. PAZHUVIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.126, PAZHUVIL, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (IN CHARGE). 2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PAZHUVIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.126, PAZHUVIL, THRISSUR REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DY.S.P., VIGILANCE, POLICE VIGILANCE OFFICE, SHORNUR ROAD, THRISSUR. 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), THRISSUR. 5. K.M.DEVADUTH, KANNOLI HOUSE, INCHAMUDI, KURUMBILAVU, THRISSUR, CASHIER, PAZHUVIL SCB LTD., THRISSUR. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN- R3, R4 ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN – R1, R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).20553/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).1347/2007-I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06/08/2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY PEON M.N.RAJESH TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 09/08/2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.159 DATED 25/08/2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY MOHANDAS, EMPLOYEE TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT MAINTAINED BY EMPLOYEE M.N.RAJESH DATED NIL. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, THRISSUR TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 26/10/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)Nos.1347 of 2007 & 20553 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner, while Secretary of the first respondent was placed under suspension, proceeded on counts of indiscipline, including mis- appropriation by way of dereliction of supervisory duties and on other counts. Ultimately, she was compulsorily retired. It is stated that proceedings are pending before the Arbitration Court and that authority has entered certain findings which are stated to be in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner further states that the Co- operative Department ordered an enquiry under Section 65 and an investigation was conducted by the Vigilance Department resulting in the registration of a criminal case, identifying respondents 5 to 8 in WP(C)No.20553 of 2008 as WPC1347/07&20553/08 -:2:- those responsible for mis-appropriation. It is the contention of the petitioner that those persons are directly and personally responsible for the alleged mis-appropriation and such liability cannot be fastened on the petitioner on principles of supervisory liability or vicarious liability. On the strength of such a contention, WP(C)No.20553 of 2008 is filed seeking a direction that the retiral benefits of respondents 5 to 8 therein shall not be released. In so far as the prayer in WP(C)No.1347 of 2007 is concerned, the same has virtually become stale with the passage of time since Section 65 enquiry had already been ordered by the Department. 2. The first respondent, a co-operative bank, is competent and able to take care of its affairs. The Co-operative Department supervises its functioning through the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. On the basis of the probable outcome, which the petitioner expects, WPC1347/07&20553/08 -:3:- it is impermissible for this Court to stall the release of retiral benefits or in any other manner interfere with the relationship between the management and the other employees. Those are matters for the management, namely the first respondent, to decide. Not only that, the reliefs sought for in these writ petitions are wholly unnecessary for the petitioner to save her skin either in the disciplinary proceedings or in any proceedings for recovery of money from her, which has to be sustained or lost on the basis of the contentions between the petitioner and the first respondent inter se. Even if such contention includes a plea that respondents 5 to 8 in WP(C) No.20553 of 2008 are the wrong doers, the petitioner cannot insist that the bank has to necessarily recover any amount from them. That also will come within the wisdom of the first respondent. WPC1347/07&20553/08 -:4:- For the aforesaid reasons, none of the reliefs sought for in these writ petitions, as they stand, need to be allowed. However, it has to be ensured by the official respondents that the enquiry under Section 65 is expedited and concluded within a reasonable time. Subject to that, these writ petitions are dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner prosecuting her remedies before the competent authority in relation to the disciplinary proceedings or defending herself in any other proceedings. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.16.7.