IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 30085 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ GEORGE KURIAN, AGED 50 YEARS,S/O.KURIAN, KANTESSIL VEEDU, KIZHACOMBU P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, PINCODE - 686662. LABORATORY ASSISTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION), KIZHACOMBU KSHEEROLPADAKA CO-OP.SOCIETY LTD.NO. E-258-(D) APCOS, KIZHACOMBU P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, PINCODE - 686662. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682030. 2. KIZHACOMBU KSHEEROLPADAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.E-258-(D) APCOS, KIZHACOMBU PO KOOTHATTUKULAM, PIN - 686662, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. DOMESTIC ENQUIRY OFFICER, ADVOCATE SAJI MATHEW, SURYA COMPLEX, VALLURKKUNNAM MARKET P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 686661. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SANTHOSH JOSE SMT.DIVYA B.NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30085 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an employee of the second respondent society. He was in charge of the office of the Secretary of the second respondent society for a short while. During that period, disciplinary action was initiated against him and a memo of charges was issued. Sri.Peter K.Alias, Advocate was appointed as the enquiry officer. He conducted an enquiry and submitted a report finding the petitioner guilty of one charge. Two charges were found not proved. The managing committee of the society that met on 9.11.2009 resolved to reject the said report and to conduct a fresh enquiry into the charges. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner moved the Deputy Director of Diary Development who is empowered to exercise the powers of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. On the short ground that the petitioner was not put on notice or heard before the fresh enquiry was ordered, the decision to hold a fresh enquiry was set aside. Ext.P2 is a copy of the order passed by the Deputy Director in that regard. The managing committee thereafter issued Ext.P3 notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the report submitted by the enquiry officer should not be rejected and a fresh enquiry should not be W.P.(C) No.30085 of 2010 2 ordered. The petitioner filed his objections. Thereafter, the managing committee that met on 13.4.2005 resolved to reject the report submitted by Sri.Peter K.Alias, Advocate and to hold a fresh enquiry into the charges. The managing committee also resolved to appoint Sri.Saji Mathew, Advocate as enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P5 letter dated 13.4.2010. The petitioner again moved the Deputy Director of Diary Development. By Ext.P6 order passed on 21.8.2010, the Deputy Director declined to interfere with Ext.P5 and the decision of the managing committee referred to above. Ext.P6 is under challenge in this writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the disciplinary authority cannot go on holding repeated enquiries till it gets a report which is acceptable to it and that the decision taken by the managing committee to wipe off the enquiry already held and to hold a de novo enquiry is without the sanction or authority of law. 2. The petitioner is an employee of a co-operative society. A Full Bench of this Court has in P.Bhaskaran and others v. Additional Secretary & others (1987 (2) KLT 903) held that co- operative societies are not statutory bodies and would have legal W.P.(C) No.30085 of 2010 3 existence even if the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act was not in force. It was also held that the co-operative societies are not instrumentalities or agencies of the State within the meaning of the said term occurring in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no writ will lie against a co-operative society governed by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the rules framed thereunder. Under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, an appeal lies from the order imposing punishment if passed by the sub-committee of the managing committee to the managing committee of society. Thereafter, the petitioner has got the right to move the Co-operative Arbitration Court challenging the decision of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. If he is still aggrieved, he can move the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal in appeal. The petitioner has thus got an adequate and meaningful remedies wherein he can raise the challenge to Ext.P6 and also the decision taken by the managing committee to wipe off the first enquiry and to hold a de novo enquiry. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the challenge to Ext.P6 cannot be entertained at this stage. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the W.P.(C) No.30085 of 2010 4 enquiry, if he is aggrieved by the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings in other appropriate proceedings. The contentions raised by the petitioner and the second respondent society on the merits are kept open. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.