IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33445 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------- P.J. JOSE, MANAGER (TERMINATED), MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OP. BANK LTD., NO. 4266, POONJAR, POONJAR THEKKEKARA P.O., PIN – 686 582 RESIDING AT PURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, PANACHIPARA, POONJAR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.APARNA RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CHAIRMAN, MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 4266, POONJAR, POONJAR THEKKEKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT – 686 582. 2. MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 4266, POONJAR, POONJAR THEKKEKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, PIN– 686 582. 3. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.33445 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 15th November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an employee of the second respondent bank. Alleging supervisory lapse disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner was also served with Ext.P4 memo dated 11.4.2008 alleging misappropriation of fund. The disciplinary proceedings thus initiated against the petitioner culminated in Ext.P10 order whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P10 the matter was taken in appeal before the Board of Directors. However, Ext.P10 order was confirmed. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P12 appeal before the Arbitration Court on 10.7.2009. Along with Ext.P12 he has also moved Ext.P13 stay application praying for grating stay of implementation of Ext.P10 order which was confirmed by Ext.P11. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to consider the contentions raised in this writ petition on merits. 2. I have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. WP(C).No.33445/2010 2 3. Admittedly, Ext.P12 appeal and Ext.P13 stay petition preferred before the Arbitration Court are pending . The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is due to retire from service within a period of five months and therefore, an expedite disposal of the appeal is essential. In view of the above facts obtained in this case, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition as hereunder:- The third respondent shall consider Ext.P13 application moved by the petitioner in Ext.P12 appeal within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeal itself has to be considered in accordance with law after affording a opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the second respondent bank expeditiously, at any rate within a period of three months thereafter. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS