IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 2515 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15217/2006 Dated 15/07/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C): ----------------- 1. MUHAMMED KUTTY, PRESIDENT, PERUVALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.1979, P.O.PERAMBIL PEEDIKA, MALAPPURAM. 2. PERUVALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.1979, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.PERAMBIL PEEDIKA, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C): ---------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), MALAPPURAM. 2. SHRI.K.T.KUNHI MOHAMMED, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, CHENAYIL HOUSE, PARAMBILPEEDIKA P.O., VIA, VELIMUKKU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., TRIVANDRUM. ADV.SRI.GEORGE PONTHOTTAM R2. SMT.A.G.ANEETHA, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 & R3. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------- W.A.No.2515 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the appellants in this writ appeal. First appellant is the President of Peruvallur Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. and the second appellant is that bank itself. They approached this Court, challenging Ext.P8 order of the Joint Registrar dated 25.5.2006 and Ext.P13 order of the Government dated 21.5.2007 affirming the said order the Joint Registrar. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The 2nd respondent was an employee of the 2nd appellant Society. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him which finally culminated in his dismissal by the resolution of the duly constituted Sub Committee of the Society dated 25.11.1991. The said dismissal order was affirmed in appeal by the Managing Committee of the Society by resolution dated W.A No.2515/2008 2 11.04.1992. The 1st respondent knocked at the doors of various authorities to get those orders set aside. Finally, he moved the Joint Registrar under Rule 176 to rescind those resolutions. When the Joint Registrar entered upon an enquiry in the above matter, the appellants moved this Court challenging the maintainability of the proceedings. But, the said challenge was not entertained and the Joint Registrar was given liberty to consider the matter on merits. 3. Subsequently, by Ext.P8 order, the Joint Registrar found that the allegations raised against the 2nd respondent were trivial and emerging out of innocent negligence or lapses. He was dismissed from service without giving him an opportunity of being heard. When the appeal filed by the delinquent employee before the Director Board was heard, three of the members of the Board, out of the five members present, were the members of the Sub Committee which decided to dismiss him. So, the appellate order was also vitiated. Based on the above findings, the Joint Registrar rescinded the resolution of the Sub Committee dated 25.11.1991 and the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 11.4.1992. Thus the dismissal order as well as W.A No.2515/2008 3 the appellate order was set aside by the Joint Registrar by Ext.P8. The aggrieved appellants moved the Government in appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Government after hearing both sides by Ext.P13 order. The writ petition was filed, as mentioned earlier, challenging Exts.P8 and P13. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, declined to interfere with the orders of the Joint Registrar and the Government. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that disciplinary action was taken against the 2nd respondent based on the findings in an enquiry. He was found to have committed misappropriation of the funds of the Society. So, the Joint Registrar should have found that the action was taken in the best interest of the Society. Further, the appellants would submit that the said officer exceeded his jurisdiction by going into the minute details of the action taken by the Society. He has no appellate power and the power under Rule 176 to rescind the resolution of the Society should not have been exercised in this case. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have interfered with the impugned orders, it is submitted. W.A No.2515/2008 4 5. We notice that the Joint Registrar has found that the Sub Committee passed the order in violation of principles of natural justice. The delinquent employee was not given a fair opportunity to present his case before the decision adverse to him was taken, it was found. Secondly, it is common case that the members of the Sub Committee participated in the Managing Committee which considered the appeal filed by the delinquent employee and they constituted majority of the Managing Committee also. So, the Sub Committee members sat in appeal to decide whether their decision was correct or not. The same goes against the second principle of natural justice that no one shall be the Judge of his own cause. The Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules provide for a fair procedure for taking disciplinary action. Going by the illegalities committed, it can be clearly stated that such actions of the Society were not authorised by the Act and Rules. They were ultravires actions. Therefore, the Joint Registrar has jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. Further, improper and irregular disciplinary action taken against the employees will demoralise them and the same is against the best interest of the Society. So, we find it difficult to accept the contentions of the appellants that the Joint W.A No.2515/2008 5 Registrar has exceeded his jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. But, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Joint Registrar has no power or authority to order reinstatement of the employee with backwages. We notice that the Joint Registrar has ordered to reinstate him with 30% of the backwages. If it is an action in excess of the jurisdiction of the Joint Registrar, it is one in favour of the Society. If the said officer cancelled the resolutions and left it there, naturally the employee would be entitled to claim entire backwages. Therefore, the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellants also cannot be accepted. In the result, we find nothing wrong with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) ps