IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14989 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. AYUSHUMMA, W/O.HAMSA KALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLANMOOLA,MAMBATHUMOOLA P.O. MALAPPURAM DIST. ASST.SECRETARY, THE KARUVARAKUNDU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 2. AHAMAD KUTTY, S/O.KHADAR HAJI PATTANATHU VEEDU, PANDIKKADU PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 521. CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, THE KARUVARAKUNDU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE KARUVARAKUNDU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO.F 1191, P.O.KARUVARAKUND MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 523. 2. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS THE KARUVARAKUNDU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, NO.F 1191, P.O.KARUVARAKUND MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 523. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) MALAPPURAM. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CO-OERATION (C) DEPARTMENT, ' GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 14989 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the employees of the 1st respondent. The first petitioner was the Assistant Secretary and the second petitioner, the Chief Accountant. On account of certain allegations of misconducts against them, by Exts.P1 and P2, they were placed under suspension for a period of six months each. That was extended by another 6 months as per Exts.P3 and P4. At that stage, the petitioners submitted Exts.P5 and P6 to the 3rd respondent requesting that they shall not be continued under suspension. That representation was ordered to be considered in Ext.P7 judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.35888/08. Petitioners submit that without considering the representation, by Ext.P8 order, sanction was granted for extending the period of suspension for another six months. Consequently, the Bank issued Exts.P9 and P10. 2. Petitioners again represented to the 3rd respondent, but that also did not yield any result. It was thereupon that the petitioners filed Exts.P14 and P15 appeals against Exts.P8, P12 WPC 14989/09 :2 : and P13. The appeals are pending before the 4th respondent. In the meanwhile, memo of charges were issued and an enquiry officer was also appointed to enquire into the allegations of misconduct. Petitioners now submit that while their appeals (Exts.P14 and P15) are pending consideration of the 4th respondent, the Bank has sought prior sanction for further extension of the suspension and the 3rd respondent is in the process of passing favourable orders. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 3. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that there is absolutely no justification for continuing the suspension particularity in the light of the law as laid down by this Court in Leelamma v. Kerala State Co-operative Rubber Marketing Federation(2008(2) KLT 608). 4. Having considered the submissions made, I do not think the petitioners are justified in their prayer, to direct the 3rd respondent not to pass any orders extending the period of suspension. Such an order will have the effect of preventing the 3rd respondent from exercising the statutory powers which has been conferred on him under the Rules. Therefore at this stage, it may not be possible to consider that prayer and the remedy of the petitioners is to pursue their statutory remedies, in the event the 3rd WPC 14989/09 :3 : respondent passes an order which is adverse to them. 5. However, the other prayer that is made in this writ petition is to direct the 4th respondent to dispose of Exts.P14 and P15 appeals referred to above with notice to the parties and as expeditiously as possible. As already noticed, the appeals were filed against the continued extension of the period of suspension and reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Leelamma's case. On account of the suspension of the petitioners, an uncertainty is created and therefore is only appropriate that the appellate authority disposes of the appeals filed by the petitioners on an expeditious basis. 6. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 4th respondent, before whom Exts.P14 and P15 appeals are pending to consider and pas orders on the aforesaid appeals with notice to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 4th respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp