IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33111 of 2008(P) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. K.P.PAVITHRAN, SENIOR ASSISTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION), KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., WAYANAD BRANCH, WAYANAD. 2. V.MOHAMMED AZEEM, JUNIOR ASSISTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION), KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. P.SIVADASAN, JUNIOR ASSISTANT (UNDER SUSPENSION), KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KARAMANA BRANCH, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON 19/12/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.33111 of 2008-P = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.Petitioners are three employees of the respondent, the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Limited. They worked in Kannur as Junior Assistants during 2003-04. One Pankajakshan was then the Senior Branch Manager of that branch. Certain issues arose regarding the sanctioning of a loan. This led to an enquiry. Ext.P1 report dated 24-4-2007 shows that Pankajakshan has retired from service. Thereafter, petitioners 2 and 3 were suspended on 13-7-2007. First petitioner was suspended on 19-3-2008. This writ petition was filed seeking a direction to give effect to the decision contained in Ext.P6, i.e., the resolution of the Board of the respondent drawn on 14-8-2008, whereby, among other things, WP(C)33111/08 -: 2 :- it was resolved to revoke the suspension of the petitioners and thus, reinstate them into service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings. A declaration is also sought to the effect that their continued suspension beyond the period fixed under Rule 198(6) of the KCS Rules, without prior approval of the Registrar, is contrary to law. By way of amendment, a further declaration is sought, to the effect that their suspension is vitiated and bad since they were working in far away places at the time of issuance of the orders of suspension. 2.In view of the pending disciplinary proceedings and also certain criminal proceedings, I do not deem it appropriate to elaborate on the allegations against the petitioners. Suffice it is, to notice that Ext.P6 resolution, to the extent aforesaid, stands resiled/recalled by the Board as per Ext.R1(e) in which, among other things, it is noticed that Ext.P6 resolution is being rescinded after detailed deliberations, having regard to the fact that the petitioners WP(C)33111/08 -: 3 :- were arrested and enlarged on bail following registration of a crime against them for offences punishable under the provisions, including Sections 120B, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC in Crime No.708/2008 of the Town Police Station, Kannur. Ext.R1(e) also contains a resolution to request the Registrar to grant special sanction valid till up to 31-3-2009 to keep the petitioners and two others under suspension. As of now, Ext.R1(e) holds the field. 3.At hearing, the primary contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the suspension is unsustainable, having regard to the fact that the petitioners were not even working at the Kannur branch while they were placed under suspension. Relief No.iii in the writ petition was specifically sought for emphasizing that the the facts of the case deserve consideration in the light of the ratio of the decision of this Court in Surendran K. Government of Kerala [2008 (3) ILR Kerala 587]. WP(C)33111/08 -: 4 :- 4.In quite contrast to the facts of Surendran (supra), as of now, the petitioners, employed in banking sector, are facing an investigation in a criminal case on grounds referable to their official conduct. The complaint is made by the employer. The offences alleged include Sections 120B and 420 and other provisions of IPC. Therefore, I do not find it available for this Court to invoke the writ jurisdiction to hold that the petitioners ought not to have been placed under suspension. 5.The petitioners' case does not continue to stand on the strength of Ext.P6 because that decision has been resiled as per Ext.R1(e) resolution which, as already noticed, is the one in force. 6.Rule 198(6) contains the regulation of the power to suspend. It contains the provision that in no case an employee shall be kept under suspension for a continuous period exceeding one year without the prior approval of the Registrar. In as much as the continued suspension of the petitioners beyond the period WP(C)33111/08 -: 5 :- of one year is, as of now, without the prior approval of the Registrar, on the facts and circumstances, the Registrar may have the power to issue directions to the respondent. – See Mohammedkutty v. Secretary to Government [2002 (1) KLT 880]. As of now, Ext.R1(e) shows that the respondent has moved the Registrar for special sanction. Therefore, the questions whether the Registrar grants such special sanction and whether, if granted, it would be in violation of the KCS Rules; or whether, if not granted, the Registrar would compel reinstatement of the petitioners, are matters best left to the wisdom of the Registrar. As of now, having regard to the gravity of the allegations against the petitioners, I do not deem it appropriate to interfere with that matter on any technical ground. Under the aforesaid circumstances, refusing relief No.i and leaving open the other questions, for consideration of the appropriate authority, it is directed that if the petitioners appear before the Registrar, they WP(C)33111/08 -: 6 :- will also be heard along with the request of the respondent following Ext.R1(e) resolution. The Registrar will decide the matter accordingly. This writ petition is so ordered. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/191208