A. Rajendran vs Registrar Of Co-Operative ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1862 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

    MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942

                    WP(C).No.1226 OF 2021(C)


PETITIONER/S:

            A. RAJENDRAN,
            AGED 52 YEARS
            S/O.AYYAPPAN, JUNIOR CLERK, CHAKKUVARAKKAL SERVICE
            CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1521, CHAKKUVARAKKAL P.O.,
            KOTTARAKKARA, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA VEEDU,
            CHAKKUVARAKKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA-691508.

            BY ADVS.
            SMT.JESSY S.SALIM
            SRI.A.D.SHAJAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1     REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001.

      2     JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
            KOLLAM-691001.

      3     ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
            KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691508.

      4     CHAKKUVARAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
            NO.1521, CHAKKUVARAKKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA-691508,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

      5     CHAKKUVARAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
            NO.1521, CHAKKUVARAKKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA-691508,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.



            SR.GP BIMAL K NATH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1226 OF 2021(C)

                                 2



                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner was a junior clerk employed under

the fourth respondent - Co-operative Bank, alleging that

he remained absent unauthorisedly. Show cause notices

were issued to him. Ultimately, by Ext.P1 he was

suspended pending enquiry. Subsequently, Ext.P2

representation was filed by the petitioner before the

second respondent to redress the grievances. However,

the fifth respondent by Ext.P3 order, terminated the

petitioner from service. It seems that proceeding the

termination enquiry was conducted and the allegation

against the petitioner was established in the domestic

enquiry. On the basis of the report society resolved to

terminate him.

2. It seems that the precise allegation against the

petitioner was that, he was continuously absent for

about two years. On the other hand, the petitioner has a

case that he was undergoing medical treatment and was

staying in his wife's house. He was not aware of the WP(C).No.1226 OF 2021(C)

enquiry proceedings. All the notices were addressed in

his residential address, which did not reach him. It was

also contended that medical certificates were

submitted before the authority, which were also not

taken into consideration.

3. These are all contentions on facts. The

above cannot be agitated in the writ proceedings,

especially when there is nothing on record to show

that there was any procedural irregularity or statutory

violation entitling this court to interfere. Hence, I am

inclined to close the Writ Petition, reserving the right of

the petitioner herein to raise the dispute regarding the

termination and approach the concerned statutory

authority.

Writ Petition (C) is closed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

R.AV WP(C).No.1226 OF 2021(C)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 9.2.2019 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT BANK.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.2.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER DATED NIL OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

     RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS          NIL