Kerala High Court
Abhijith Sreenivasan vs The Joint Director Co-Operative ... on 2 April, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
WA NO. 480 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:27771
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WA NO. 480 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.02.2025 IN WP(C) NO.32791
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 ABHIJITH SREENIVASAN,
AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O. SREENIVASAN, THOOPRAM HOUSE, RANDUKAI,
CHAIPAMKUZHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680724.
2 ABHISHEK JOY,
AGED 24 YEARS,
S/O. JOY K.L, KUTTATTY HOUSE, PONNAMBIOLY,
KUTTICHIRA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680724
BY ADVS.
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
NISHA GEORGE
ANSHIN K.K
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE JOINT DIRECTOR CO-OPERATIVE (AUDIT),
OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR CO-OPERATIVE (AUDIT),
KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003.
WA NO. 480 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:27771
2 THE KODASSERY- ELIJIPPRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, LTD
NO.R-228,
HEAD OFFICE, MECHIRA, KODASSERY P.O., THRISSUR
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680721
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.03.2025, THE COURT ON 02.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 480 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:27771
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.32791 of 2024. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the appellants seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records leading up to Exhibit-P8 and P9 and to set aside the same; ii. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records leading up to Exhibit-P7 Audit Certificate and Audit Memorandum dated 04.10.2023 of the Joint Director of Co-operative Societies, Audit, Thrissur District for the Financial year 2022-23 to the extent it withholds the salary and other allowances to the post of Night Watchmen and to set aside the same;
iii. Issue a writ declaring that the direction to withhold the salary by the auditor is without power, authority and jurisdiction."
2. According to appellants, they are currently working as peons in the 2nd respondent society. The post of Watchman was vacant in the Bank. The 2nd respondent Bank invited applications to the post of Night Watchman in the Bank. An outside agency conducted the written examination for the post of Night Watchman WA NO. 480 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:27771 and the Managing committee of the 2nd respondent Bank conducted interview for the watchman post. Accordingly, the Appellants were appointed in the service of the Bank. But, after the audit conducted for the financial year 2022-23, the Auditor as per Ext.P7 audit certificate dated 04.10.2023, withheld the salary and other benefits of the Appellants. Going by the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969, ('the KCS Act' in short), the Auditor did not have any authority to withhold the salary and other benefits of the appellants for the service rendered by them. Now the 2nd respondent Bank has issued Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 notices dated 31.08.2024 to the Appellants stating that, following the directive outlined in defect No. 1.2 of Exhibit-P7 audit report, the Managing Committee of the respondent bank has decided to withhold the Appellants salaries and other benefits starting from 01.09.2024. Hence the Appellants filed the writ petition.
3. As per the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2025, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the appellants to file a reply to Exts.P8 and P9 show cause notices, within a period of ten days. The 2nd respondent bank was directed to decide the show cause notices after considering the WA NO. 480 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:27771 reply, if any, filed by the appellants within ten days after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Being dissatisfied, the appellants filed the above appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Section 64 of the KCS Act prescribes the power and scope of the audit. Going by the said Section, the 1st respondent does not have any authority to withhold the salary and other benefits of the appellants. Exts.P8 and P9 show cause notices were issued on the basis of the direction in the audit report to withhold the salary and other benefits of the appellants. Hence, Exts.P8 and P9 notices are bad in law and are liable to be set aside. The learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment without considering these aspects.
6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the learned Single Judge has issued only a direction to finalize Exts.P8 and P9 show cause notices, giving an WA NO. 480 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:27771 opportunity to the appellants to reply to those notices and submit their part. Hence, no interference is needed to the impugned judgment.
7. Section 64 of the KCS Act deals with scope of audit, powers of the Director of Co-operative Audit and procedure for audit. According to the appellants, the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to withhold the salary and other benefits of the appellants and he can only point out the defect in the financial affairs of the Society. Hence according to the appellants, Exts.P8 and P9 notices issued by the bank in pursuance to the report of the 1st respondent cannot be acted upon.
8. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the bar, we are of the opinion that the said contentions can also be raised by the appellants before the 2nd respondent while filing reply to Exts.P8 and P9 notices as directed in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
In the result, the writ appeal is disposed of making it clear that the appellants can raise the question of jurisdictional aspect also in the reply permitted to be filed to Exts.P8 and P9 show cause notices and the 2nd respondent shall decide the jurisdictional issue WA NO. 480 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:27771 also at the time of deciding the matter as directed in the impugned judgment.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE DSV/-