IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 11029 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.BATTU SHETTY,ASSISTANT SECRETARY, S/O.ITHAPPA SHETTY,R/AT SHINIDEEP NIVAS, PERLATHADKA, PO KATTUKUKKE 671 552, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,(GENERAL),KASARAGOD. 2. THE KATTUKUKKE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NO.C.97,PO KATUKUKKE,VIA PERLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. KODOTH PUSHPARAJAN FOR R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011 ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO.11688 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.11029 OF 2011 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.11.2010 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT WITH MEMO OF CHARGES. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.2.2011 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.3.2011 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.11029 & 11688 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T A common question arises in these writ petitions. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11029 of 2011 is the Assistant Secretary of the second respondent co-operative society which is the petitioner in the connected case, W.P.(C) No.11688 of 2011. Unless otherwise mentioned, documents are referred to as those produced in W.P.(C) No. 11688 of 2011. The Assistant Secretary submitted an application to the President of the second respondent bank for permission to contest in the election to the local body held in September, 2010. The said request was rejected by Ext.P9 order on the ground that the services of the entire staff of the bank are required to achieve the targets fixed for deposit mobilisation. It appears the Assistant Secretary went ahead and contested in the elections. Ext.P1 memo of charges dated 25.10.2010 was thereupon issued and he was called upon to submit his written explanation. The petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P2 explanation dated 30.10.2010 in which he stated that he had earlier contested the elections to Enmakaje Grama Panchayat and has every right to contest in the W.P.(C) Nos.11029 & 11688 of 2011 2 elections. He also took the stand that as per the rules and regulations of the State Election Commission, he need not seek and obtain the permission of the Board of Directors for contesting in the elections. He also denied all the allegations raised against him in the memo. 3. The managing committee of the bank considered the said reply in its meeting held on 9.11.2010 and resolved to place him under suspension. Ext.P3 order dated 9.11.2010 was thereupon issued placing the Assistant Secretary under suspension with immediate effect pending enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, the Assistant Secretarys filed Ext.P4 appeal before the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies (General), Kasargod. The said officer heard the petitioner, the President of the Bank, considered the report submitted by the Assistant Registrar (General), Kasargod and passed Ext.P5 order dated 17.2.2011 whereby he directed the bank to reinstate the Assistant Secretary in service after rescinding the resolution adopted by the bank on 9.11.2010. While the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11029 of 2011 seeks enforcement of that order, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11688 of 2011 (the bank) attacks that order. The challenge to that order is on the ground that in view of section 69 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969 as amended by Act 1 of 2000 with effect from 2.1.2003, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies had no W.P.(C) Nos.11029 & 11688 of 2011 3 jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and that if the Assistant Secretary was aggrieved by the order of suspension, he should have moved the Co-operative Arbitration Court seeking redressal of his grievance. 4. I heard Sri.K.Shri Hari Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11029 of 2011, Sri.Kodath Pushparajan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.11688 of 2011 and Sri.P.M.Manoj, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. I have also considered the pleadings and the materials on record. It is not in dispute that the request made by the Assistant Secretary for permission to contest in the elections was declined by Ext.P9 order dated 27.9.2010. Ext.P1 memo specifically refers to the fact that copy of the said order was served on the Assistant Secretary on 30.9.2010. However, the Assistant Secretary contested the elections. It was in such circumstances that Ext.P1 memo was issued and thereafter he was placed under suspension. The charge levelled against the Assistant Secretary is that he contested the elections contrary to the decision of the management and it is an act of misconduct which warrants disciplinary action against him. The Assistant Secretary was placed under suspension on 9.11.2010. Nearly six months have passed thereafter. Going by the nature of the W.P.(C) Nos.11029 & 11688 of 2011 4 misconduct alleged and the stand taken by the Assistant Secretary in Ext.P2 reply to the memo initially issued on 25.10.2010, I am of the opinion that during the period of time that had passed between the date of suspension and the date of passing Ext.P5 order, an enquiry could have been held and finalised. Such being the situation, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the decision taken by the Joint Registrar even assuming that the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies could not have entertained the challenge to the order of suspension. In Commissioner of Police v. Abida Beevi (2006 (2) KLT 112) a learned single Judge of this Court held that even if the order impugned is passed by an authority which had no jurisdiction, if justice had been done and if on admitted facts, this Court would have passed the same order, no interference is called for. I am therefore of the opinion that no interference is called for with Ext.P5 impugned order. Consequently, I hold that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11029 of 2011 is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.11029 of 2011 filed by the employee is allowed and W.P.(C) No.11688 of 2011 filed by the employer bank is dismissed. The second respondent in W.P.(C) No.11029 of 2011 is directed to reinstate the employee in service as directed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies with the W.P.(C) Nos.11029 & 11688 of 2011 5 observation that such reinstatement will be without prejudice to the right of the bank to finalise the disciplinary action initiated by it. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.