IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6636 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- D.VALSALA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.KARTHIKEYAN C.N., CHAKKALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAVANAKKADU (PO), ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NORTH PARAVUR. 4. THE S.N.M.COLLEGE STAFF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO.E766, MALIANKARA (P.O.), ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GP K C SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.6636 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a Clerk/Cashier in the Ernakulam Branch of the Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank. She joined the said Bank on 28.9.2004 through the PSC. Before she joined the Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank, she was working as an L.D.Clerk in the office of the fourth respondent, Society. She had been placed under suspension with effect from 20.2.2001 alleging that she had committed financial misappropriation along with the then Secretary. Pursuant to her suspension, an enquiry was conducted in which she was exonerated of the charges. Consequently, she was reinstated with continuity in service with effect from 20.2.2001. It was further ordered that she would be included in the rank list published by the PSC for appointment to the post in which she is presently working. She was relieved from her duties under the fourth respondent on her executing an indemnity bond. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner received a memo directing her to Wpc 6636/10 2 settle the liability with the fourth respondent. She replied to the same requesting for a copy of the audit report of the Society. When the same was not furnished, she submitted a petition under the Right to Information Act, requesting for copies of the audit reports. However, the same was not furnished. 3. In the meantime, the second respondent passed an order holding that the petitioner shall also be liable along with the Secretary for an amount of Rs.16,321.05 with 18% interest with effect from 9.8.2001. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner remitted Rs.32,900/- on 14.5.2007, by D.D. In spite of the remittance of the said amount, the amounts due to the petitioner were not disbursed to her. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to get Rs.1,85,638/- from the fourth respondent. The amounts are due to the petitioner as deposits made by her with the fourth respondent. It is submitted that the Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank has challenged Ext.P4 order before this court in WP(C)25538 of 2007, which is still pending. Subsequently, the fourth respondent regularised the petitioner's service. However, since the amounts due to the petitioner were not paid, she Wpc 6636/10 3 filed ARC 37 of 2008 before the second respondent. Meanwhile, the fourth respondent filed ARC 2615 of 2008 before the third respondent, claiming that amounts are due from the petitioner. The petitioner is contesting the said ARC. The complaint of the petitioner is that the cases are not disposed of till date. 4. Since the contentions in both the cases mentioned above relate to the same incident, it is better that both the cases are tried by the same authority. The parties in both the cases are also the same and documents to be relied upon as well as the evidence to be adduced are also identical. In view of the above, for a full and proper adjudication of the issues that are raised, it is better that both the cases are tried by the same authority. The Senior Government Pleader also does not have any objection in directing the same authority to consider and dispose of both the cases. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to try and dispose of ARC 37 of 2008 pending before it as well as ARC 2615 of 2008 pending before the third respondent. The third respondent shall immediately transmit the Wpc 6636/10 4 records of ARC 2615 of 2008 pending before it to be tried and disposed of by the second respondent. The second respondent is directed to dispose of the cases as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk