IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24758 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.R.PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O.LATE RADHAKRISHNAN, BADGE NO.885, CANTEEN BOY, BPCL EMPLOYEES' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.E-226, KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL, COCHIN-682 302. RESIDING AT KARINGATHURUTHU HOUSE, MARADU.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BPCL EMPLOYEES' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.E-226, KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL, COCHIN-682 302, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE PRESIDENT, BPCL EMPLOYEES' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.E-226, KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL, COCHIN-682 302. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION(A)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT-P1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 12.5.2011. EXT-P2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.5.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P1 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. EXT-P3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 28.7.2011. EXT-P4 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.7.2011 IN CRL.M.C.NO.2249/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT-P5 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.8.2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.6317/2011 EXT-P6 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.8.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT-P7 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13.9.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P6 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE jma P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 24758 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P6 order issued by the President of the first respondent society on 29.8.2011 whereby he placed the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry is under challenge in this writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the suspension is based on newspaper reports, which are not even secondary evidence of their contents and therefore the order is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the allegation levelled against the petitioner in Crime No.1018/2011 and 2060/2011 of Aluva Police Station do not attract the provisions contained in the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Kerala Rules, 1979. 2. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that two criminal cases have been registered against him for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also arrested and later enlarged on bail. In such circumstances if the competent authority thought it fit that he should be placed under suspension pending disciplinary action WPC No.24758/2011 2 against him, I find no reason to hold that the said order is in any way arbitrary or illegal. 3. The next contention raised by the petitioner is that no disciplinary sub committee has so far been constituted in the first respondent society and therefore the order of suspension is not warranted. I am afraid there is no merit in the said contention also. The constitution of the disciplinary sub committee is to proceed with the enquiry. Therefore even assuming that no disciplinary committee has so far been constituted that by itself is not a reason to interfere with the order of suspension. That apart, the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act do not stipulate that the prior approval of the Registrar of Co- operative Societies is required to place an employee under suspension. Such being the situation, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed reserving liberty with the petitioner to defend the charges levelled against him. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps