IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30197 of 2008(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ G.SURENDRAN, BRANCH MANAGER (UNDER ORDERS OF SUSPENSION), CHEMMARUTHY SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD, NO.T 328, PANAYARA P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. CHEMMARUTHY SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. NO.T.328, PANAYARA P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SREEKANDAN NAIR, ASST.SECRETARY, CHEMMARUTHY SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD.NO.T.328, PANAYARA P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD FOR R2 ADV. SRI.S.JAYAPRAKASH (MADAVOOR) FOR R1 SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.30197/2008 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 21/03/06. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 24/03/06. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 15/06/07. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DTD. 21/06/07. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER IN VEEKSHNAM DAILY DTD. 2/07/07. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 3/07/07. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE MADHYAMAM DAILY DTD. 3/07/07. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION FOR HALF PAY LEAVE FROM 14/06/07 TO 25/06/07. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT HAVING NO.456 DTD. 14/06/07. EXT.P10; COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE BANK DTD. 16/06/07. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION FOR THE PERIOD FROM 26/06/07. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT HAVING NO.2620. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD OF THE BANK. EXT.P14: COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER DTD. 25/06/07. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 20/08/07 IN WP(C)NO.20799/07. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 6/11/2007. Kss ...2/- ..2... WPC.NO.30197/2008 T EXT.P18: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DTD. 11/06/08. EXT.P19: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 19/06/08. EXT.P20: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 21/06/08. EXT.P21: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 22/09/08 IN WPC.NO.20799/07. EXT.P22: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 16/08/07 IN WP(C) NO.24749/07. EXT.P23: COPY OF THE AWARD DTD. 23/05/2008. EXT.P24: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 18/08/08 IN WP(C) NO.24763/08. EXT.P25: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR. EXT.P26: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A): COPY OF DECISION TAKEN BY 1ST RESPONDENT NO.192/08. EXT.R1(B): COPY OF ORDER NO.C.R.P.(2) 8857/08 DTD. 6/10/2008 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.30197 of 2008-T = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner is an employee of the first respondent. He was placed under suspension on 14- 6-2007. If period of suspension is to be continued beyond a period of one year, Rule 198 (6) of the KCS Rules enjoins that such continued suspension could be had only with the prior permission of the Registrar. It appears that the petitioner had an earlier disciplinary proceedings which culminated in an award in ARC.109/2007. He is entitled to certain benefits as per that award. When the first respondent requested the Joint Registrar for prior permission to continue the petitioner under suspension beyond 13-6-2008, Ext.P20 was issued calling for a report regarding the action taken on the basis of the direction of this Court in WP WP(C)30197/08 -: 2 :- (C).20799/2007. It is not discernible from the materials before me now as to what happened to the request of the bank which led to Ext.P20. But, what is now seen is that Ext.R1(b) is issued on a request dated 4-10-2008 whereby sanction is granted on 6-10-2008 to continue the petitioner under suspension from 14-6-2008 to 2-12-2008. Leaving aside the legal issue as to whether it is permissible for the Registrar to grant ex post facto permission or whether Rule 198(6) provides only for prior sanction stricto senso, it appears that though Exts.R1(b) and P25 are generated from the same office, there is no fair application of mind in the issuance, either of Ext.R1(b), or of Ext.P25. Ext.P24 judgment was issued by this Court, among other things, on the plea that the petitioner is being continued under suspension beyond the statutory period. It was accordingly that he stood relegated to the Joint Registrar. Ext.P25 has answered various other questions but not on the quality of the continued placement of the petitioner under suspension, without prior WP(C)30197/08 -: 3 :- permission. Equally so is the fact regarding Ext.R1(b) which is, indisputably, one generated even without hearing the petitioner. Under such circumstances, Ext.R1(b) and the decision contained in Ext.P25 to the extent it does not touch on the question of continued suspension of the petitioner, require to be re-considered by the Registrar. To that extent, they are quashed, to enable such re-consideration. It appears that Ext.P25 and Ext.R1(b) were issued by two different persons as the Joint Registrar. Under such circumstances, it is ordered that the question of the petitioner being under continued suspension will be reconsidered, having regard to the request of the bank as referred to in Ext.P20 and its request which generated Ext.R1(b). The petitioner will also be heard on the question as to whether he is liable to be further continued under suspension and also whether it is legally permissible to extend the period of suspension in cases where no such prior permission is granted in terms of Rule 198(6). Let this be done within WP(C)30197/08 -: 4 :- three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is directed to appear before the second respondent to mark his attendance on 19-11-2008 so that the said officer can fix the date of hearing and dispose of the matter within the time limit fixed above. The writ petition is ordered as above. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/171108