IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13704 of 2011(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M.SHAHUL HAMEED, (CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, UNDER ORDERS OF DISMISSAL), VELINELLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, LTD.NO.2873, AMBALAMKUNNU BRANCH, NETTAYAM P.O., 691 537, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. VELINELLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, LTD.NO.2873, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KARINGANNOOR P.O., 691 537, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF VELINELLOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.2873, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, KARINGANNOOR P.O.,691 537, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOLLAM - 690 001. R1,2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 13704 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE BANK. P2: COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21/10/2010. P3: COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 13/01/2011. P4: COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER 26/01/2011. P5: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 09/02/2011. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2011 OF THE DISMISSAL. P7: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 28/02/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COMMITTEE. P8: COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 09/05/2011 OF THE SECRETARY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(a):COPY OF the REPLY DATED 28/02/2011 FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT. P5 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. R1(b):COPY OF ORDER NO.1652/2011 DATED 20/05/2011 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 13704 OF 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P6 order passed by the disciplinary sub committee of the first respondent society and Ext.P8 memo issued by the Secretary of the society are under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P7 appeal filed from Ext.P6 order and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. The petitioner is an employee of the first respondent society. He was placed under suspension on 21.10.2010 by Ext.P2 order issued by the President of the first respondent society. Shortly thereafter, Ext.P3 memo of charges dated 13.1.2011 was served on him to which, he submitted Ext.P4 reply. The Convenor of the disciplinary sub committee of the first respondent society thereupon issued Ext.P5 memo calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the disciplinary action initiated against him should not be finalised. On receipt of Ext.P5 notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply. The W.P.(C).No. 13704 OF 2011 2 Convenor of the disciplinary sub committee thereafter passed Ext.P6 order dated 18.3.2011 dismissing the petitioner from service. Ext.P7 appeal submitted before the Board of Directors was disposed of by Ext.R1(b) order passed on 20.5.2011. The said appeal was rejected. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 23.05.2011. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.5.2011. He cannot therefore be reinstated in service even if the orders impugned in this writ petition are set aside. Under section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the petitioner has an effective and meaningful remedy before the Co-operative Arbitration Court wherein he can challenge the impugned orders. From the decision of the Co- operative Arbitration Court, an appeal lies to the Kerala Co- operative Tribunal. The petitioner therefore has an effective and meaningful alternative remedy. Such being the situation, I am of the opinion that he should invoke the said remedy instead of straight away invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed leaving open the contentions of both sides and reserving liberty with the W.P.(C).No. 13704 OF 2011 3 petitioner to challenge the impugned orders in appropriate proceedings before the Co-operative Arbitration Court. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE dmb