IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15837 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- P.T.JACOB, POLAKKAROT HOUSE, ULANADAU P.O., KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE KULANADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.2133, KULANADA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. KULANADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 2133, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KULANADA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB FOR R1 &2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.15837/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT 4.7.2008 ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT 2.8.2008 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DT 25.2.2009 ISSUED BY THE DISCIPLINARY SUB COMMITTEE. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED EXPLANATION TOT HE MEMO OF CHARGES DT 10.12.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COMMITTEE. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY F THE COMMUNICATION NO.66/08-09 ISSUED BY THE CONVENER SCB. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST ALONG WITH CONSENT DT 31.3.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE REQUEST DT 17.4.2009 ISSUED BY THE DOMESTIC ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DT 15.11.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE DT 4.5.2009 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15837 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Secretary in Charge of the 2nd respondent Co-operative Bank. On the allegation of certain misconducts, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 4/7/2008. Domestic enquiry was initiated and is pending. 2. In this writ petition he has two grievances. The first one is regarding the alleged non payment of subsistence allowance due to him. However, it is now conceded that during the pendency of this writ petition certain amounts were paid towards subsistence allowance and the present complaint is that the amount paid is inadequate. On the other hand, the Bank asserts for the position that what is due has been paid. This controversy regarding the actual amount that is payable cannot be resolved in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I leave it open to the petitioner to pursue his grievance before the appropriate authorities. 3. The other grievance of the petitioner is that during the course of the enquiry, in view of the nature of the charges and the complicated type of evidence that is forthcoming, he wanted to WPC 15837/09 :2 : have the assistance of an authorised representative. It is his case that by Ext.P6, an employee who has retired from the Department has consented to be his authorised representative and that he made a request to the Enquiry Officer. However, his request was turned down by Ext.P7 communication of the Enquiry Officer and he has been informed that he can have the assistance of a lawyer. Petitioner states that he cannot afford to engage a lawyer and therefore he should be permitted to be represented by an authorised representative. 4. I heard the counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Both sides submit that Service Rule do not provide either way about availing of the assistance of either a counsel or an authorised representative. If that be so, taking into account the fact that the enquiry officer was willing to allow the petitioner to avail of the assistance of a lawyer, I feel there is no reason why the petitioner should not be permitted to avail of the assistance of an authorised representative. Therefore, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to avail of the assistance of an authorised representative as sought for by him, who will represent the petitioner for the remaining part of the enquiry. It WPC 15837/09 :3 : is made clear that this order will not enable the petitioner to seek reopening of the enquiry which is already held against him. 6. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the enquiry officer for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp