IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 OP.No. 11078 of 1999(R) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.K. VISWANATHAN NAIR, S/O. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, THRIKARTHIKA, PODIKUNDU, PALLIKKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, SENIOR CONCURRENT AUDITOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.K.RAVI SANKAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM. *2. JOINT REGISTRAR (AUDIT), IDUKKI DISTRICT CO – OPERATIVE BANK, PAINAVU , IDUKKI. (CORRECTED) * JOINT REGISTRAR (AUDIT) OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PAINAVU, IDUKKI. ADDRESS OF R2 CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DTD. 4.12.99 IN CMP. 40604/99. 3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (AUDIT), UDUMBANCHOLA, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.S.MOHAMED HASHIM THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.17991/1999 IN OP. NO.11078/1999. DISMISSED 24/11/2009 SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE SUMMONS DTD. 10.1.1997 IN .A.R.C. NO.847/96 ISSUED BY THE ARBITRATOR. P2:- COPY OF THE ARBITRATION PETITION DTD. 6.4.1996 IN A.R.C. 847/96. P3:- COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 28.1.1997 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE TOUR DIARY DTD. 1.2.1997 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE ATENDANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASST. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) THALIPARAMBA. P6:- COPY OF THE APPROVED ADVANCE TOUR PROGRAMME DTD. 24.2.1997. P6(a):- COPY OF THE APPROVED ADVANCE PROGRAMME DTD. 25.3.1997. P6(b):- COPY OF THE APPROVED ADVANCE PROGRAMME DTD. 26.4.1997. P6(c):- COPY OF THE APPROVED ADVANCE PROGRAMME DTD. 25.6.1997. P7:- COPY OF THE TOUR DAIRY OF THE PETITIONER (TOUR) FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY. P7(a):- COPY OF THE TOUR DAIRY OF THE PETITIONER (TOUR) FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH. P7(b):- COPY OF THE TOUR DAIRY OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL. P7(c):- COPY OF THE TOUR DAIRY OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF MAY. P7(d):- COPY OF THE TOUR DAIRY OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE. P7(e):- COPY OF THE TOUR DAIRY OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF JULY. OP. NO.11078/1999 P8:- COPY OF THE SUMMONS IN A.R.C. 6670/96 OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL THALIPARAMBA. P9:- COPY OF THE PETITION IN A.R.C. 6670/906 OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) THALIPARAMBA. P10:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 3.7.1997 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 24.3.1999 (NO. A 743/97) OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 11078 of 1999 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 24th November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, while working as a Unit Inspector in the office of the Assistant Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, Taliparamba in 1995-1996, acted as a Returning Officer to conduct election to the managing committee of the Payyavoor Service Co- operative Bank, Payyavoor, Kannur District. He was also appointed as a part-time Administrator of Kolithattu Service Co-operative Bank, Kolithattu, Kannur District. In respect of election to the Payyavoor Service Co-operative Bank, the candidates filed ARC Nos. 847.1996 and 6670/1996 before the administrator under Section 69 of the Co- operative Societies Act, challenging the results of the election. In the ARCs, the petitioner was arrayed as the 1st respondent . Pursuant to the summons received by the petitioner, the petitioner appeared before the arbitrator in the two ARCs and continued to attend the hearing of the ARCs on all postings. According to the petitioner, he obtained appropriate permission from the superior officer and also got the tour diary approved for the purpose. All these were done after the petitioner was transferred to Idukki District. Therefore, he travelled all the way from Idukki to Kannur for every posting of the cases for 55 days. When he applied for T.A for the same, that was rejected. The petitioner was also directed to apply for eligible leave for 52 days since according to the respondents, except for the first postings it was not necessary for the petitioner to be personally present for the postings of the cases. But he attended the hearings apart from the initial postings. The same resulted in Ext. P11 order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, wherein the Joint Registrar held that out of 55 days of the appearance of the petitioner before the arbitrator, for 52 days, the petitioner has to apply for eligible leave or else the same would be treated as unauthorized absence, for which recovery of the salary paid to him would be effected. The petitioner O.P. No. 11078/1999 -: 2 :- challenges 11 order. 2. According to the petitioner, as is clear from Ext. P2 copy of the ARC, the petitioner was arrayed as the first respondent specifically by name and therefore had no option but to appear before the arbitrator. He also submits that he had complied with all procedural formalities for attending the hearing like intimating the superior officer and getting his tour diary approved by the superior officer. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent disputing the contentions of the petitioner. According to the 1st respondent, it was not at all necessary for the petitioner to attend the hearing after the initial postings. He had already handed over charge of returning officer to the successor unit Inspector and therefore the successor unit Inspector at Taliparamba was competent to appear before the arbitrator in the proceedings in the ARCs. The petitioner need have appeared before the arbitrator only if he was to give evidence in the ARCs. Instead, without even informing the unit Inspector at Taliparamba, he, on his own, appeared before the arbitrator, which was totally unnecessary. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioner was a native of Kannur and he has undertaken the journeys only to visit his native place at the expense of the Government. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the contentions insofar as the petitioner would contend that the Joint Registrar passed Ext. P11 order as per the directions of the Registrar of the Co- operative Societies, the 1st respondent herein, who had not given an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before issuing the direction to the 2nd respondent-Joint Registrar. The contention of the O.P. No. 11078/1999 -: 3 :- petitioner is that once the Registrar directed the Joint Registrar to take action, he had no option but to pass Ext. P11 order whatever be the petitioner's contentions. Therefore, the petitioner would contend that Ext. P11 is violative of the principles of natural justice. 6. I am of opinion that since Ext. P11 itself refers to two letters of the 1st respondent, it is obvious that the Joint Registrar had taken action based on the direction of the Registrar. The respondents have no case that before ordering action, the Registrar had heard the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that the Registrar should give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Accordingly, Ext. P11 is quashed and the 1st respondent is directed to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass fresh orders in the matter. If the Registrar is inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner, he shall also decide the question of eligibility of the petitioner for travelling allowance for the journeys undertaken by him to attend the proceedings before the arbitrator in the ARCs. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/