IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 12941 of 2008(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ THE PORKULAM SERVICE CO.OP.BANK LTD. NO.267, P.O.PORKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. N. RADHA ASSISTANT SECRETARY (UNDER SUSPENSION) THE PORKULAM SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD.NO.267 P.O.PORKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN - R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).12941/2008-N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 03/09/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY- DATED 04/09/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 10/09/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY NOTICE DATED 08/11/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ARC NO.133/07 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/11/07. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/02/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // Rs/ Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.12941 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The first respondent, an employee of the petitioner, was proceeded against on certain counts of indiscipline. I do not venture to state anything on the merits of the matter because, that can gain attention in appropriate proceedings, if needed. The first respondent challenge the initiation of disciplinary proceedings on different grounds by recourse to arbitration. The Arbitrator stayed the disciplinary proceedings. In this writ petition filed challenging the arbitration proceedings, this Court granted an order of stay of further proceedings in that case. Resultantly, the enquiry proceedings have been completed. Therefore, the arbitration proceedings need not, essentially, continue. Be that as it may, Ext.P8 was issued by the Arbitrator directing the wpc12941/08 -:2:- petitioner employer to release subsistence allowance. Though there is no specific order of this Court staying the operation of that Ext.P8 order, it appears that the said order has not been complied with by the petitioner. 2. The enquiry proceedings having concluded, the petitioner has to consider the contentions of the first respondent in opposition to the enquiry proceedings and regarding any proposed punishment and pass appropriate orders as are necessary, in accordance with law. To aid such process, A.R.C.No.133 of 2007 in the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram is hereby quashed leaving open all contentions of the first respondent herein and the writ petitioner. However, following Ext.P8 order, it is directed that the petitioner shall release to the first respondent the entire subsistence allowance that is due to her in accordance with law from the date on wpc12941/08 -:3:- which she was placed under suspension. That shall be released within an outer limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The disciplinary proceedings shall be concluded before the present authority within a period of 45 days from now. Writ petition is ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.