G. Sreedharan Pillai vs Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13032 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
  FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1943
                   OP(C) NO. 1169 OF 2012
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RP 142/2010 OF KERALA CO-
 OP.TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED
                          31.8.2011
PETITIONER/S:

         ADICHANALLOOR FARMERS SERVICE
         LTD. NO. 2609,ADICHANALLOOR.P.O.,KOLLAM DISTRICT,
         REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR IN CHARGE.

         BY ADVS.
         SRI.S.SHARAN
         SRI.A.D.SHAJAN


RESPONDENT/S:

    1    JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.SOCIETIES
         (GENERAL) KOLLAM-691001.

    2    G. SREEDHARAN PILLAI

(RTD. SENIOR CLERK), BRANCH MANAGER IN CHARGE, KOTTIYAM BRANCH, RESIDING AT SREEPADAM, VELICHIKKALA.P.O., ADICHANALLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.LEO GEORGE

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.06.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).9935/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 9935 OF 2014 PETITIONER/S:

G. SREEDHARAN PILLAI S/O.GOPINATHAN PILLAI, SREEPADMAM, VELICHIKKALA P.O., ADICHANALLOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 573.

BY ADVS.

SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.T.T.RAKESH

RESPONDENT/S:

1 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES KOLLAM- 691 001.

2 ADICHANALLOOR FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 691 001 ADICHANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR IN CHARGE.

BY ADVS.

R2 SMT.S.SINDHU R2 SRI.S.SHARAN

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.06.2021, ALONG WITH OP(C).1169/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

COMMON JUDGEMENT Dated, this the 18th day of June, 2021 [O.P.(C) No.1169 of 2012 and W.P.(C) No.9935 of 2014]

OP(C) No.1169/2012 is a petition filed under Article 227

of the Constitution of India. It is filed by a Co-operative Bank

named Adichanalloor Farmers' Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.

No. 2609, Adichanalloor (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank')

with the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies as the first

respondent and G. Sreedharan Pillai, a retired Senior Clerk of

the Bank's Kottiyam branch, as the second respondent. In this

petition, the Bank seeks to challenge the order of the Kerala

Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in Revision

Petition No.142/2010 dated 31/08/2011.

2. W.P.(C) No.9935/2014 is filed by the 2nd

respondent in the OP(C) referred to above against the Joint

Registrar and the Bank as the respondents, under Article 226 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of mandamus to

command the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on

Ext.P1 filed by the petitioner to issue directions to the second

respondent Bank to disburse the salary and terminal benefits

due to the petitioner.

3. In view of the fact that the parties to both the

petitions are common in the dispute which is being agitated

and to be decided is also common, both the petitions are

disposed vide this common judgment.

4. The parties are hereinafter referred to in accordance

with their status in the O.P.(C) No.1169/2012, unless expressly

stated otherwise. The 2nd respondent joined the services of

the Bank as a Bill Collector in the year 1979. He was thereafter

promoted as a Junior Clerk and then as a Senior Clerk. In the

year 1998, he was placed in charge of the Branch Manager,

Kottiyam Branch of the Bank. He continued in that position till

he was placed under suspension pending enquiry on OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

15/05/2003. There are two bill collectors employed in the

branch who collected amounts from depositors and deposited

those amounts in the Bank. The bill collectors allegedly

misappropriated a total sum of ₹7,23,228/- from out of the

amounts received from the depositors. The Chief Accountant

of the Bank discovered the misappropriation and reported the

same. The 2nd respondent was found to be negligent and thus

guilty of misconduct and dereliction of duty. He was thereafter

served with a charge memo on 13/10/2003 by the Managing

Committee of the Bank and a Sub Committee was constituted

for initiating disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the

charge memo laid against the delinquent. An enquiry officer

was deputed to conduct a domestic enquiry. The 2 nd

respondent had filed W.P.(C)No.23378/2003 challenging the

action against him before this Court. Vide order in IA No.

13173/2003 this Court directed that if the disciplinary

proceedings initiated against the 2nd respondent is not OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

completed before his superannuation on 31/12/2003, a

penalty of dismissal or removal from service shall not be

imposed. The enquiry officer commenced the domestic enquiry

on 15/11/2003 and completed it on 21/07/2004 a report was

filed by the enquiry officer on 31/08/2004 finding that the

charges levelled against the 2nd respondent herein were all

found against him. The delinquent filed an objection to the

enquiry report on 15/09/2004. Thereafter, he was served with

notice dated 20/09/2004 directing him to show cause why the

punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed

upon him. He submitted an explanation on 24/09/2004. After

considering his reply and the enquiry report he was dismissed

from service with effect from the date of his suspension, vide

order dated 28/09/2004. In the meanwhile, the delinquent had

already retired from service with effect from 31/12/2003. In

view of the order of this Court in IA No. 13173/2003 in W.P.(C)

No.23378/2003, there was an order to complete the OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

disciplinary proceedings before his superannuation and in case

it was not completed before the stipulated time, no order for

dismissal or removal from service could be passed. The 2 nd

respondent therefore filed a Contempt Case (C) No.

1498/2004 before this Court alleging that the dismissal order

was in contempt of the order of this Court preventing such

dismissal. The sub-committee thereafter reviewed the order of

dismissal and vide another order dated 04/12/2004 imposed

the punishment of treating the period of suspension as

suspension and denied him the pay during that period as also

terminal benefits. The 2nd respondent filed a statutory appeal

before the Managing Committee which too was dismissed vide

order dated 10/05/2005. Aggrieved by that order, the 2nd

respondent approached the Arbitration Court,

Thiruvananthapuram by filing ARC No.25/2005. Vide Award

dated 28/10/2008, the ARC was allowed and the punishment

imposed on the 2nd respondent was set aside. Aggrieved by OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

that, the Bank approached the Tribunal with revision petition

No.142/2010. Vide the impugned order dated 31/08/2011,

the Co-operative Tribunal dismissed the revision. It is that

order which stands challenged before this Court in the O.P.

(C)1168/2012.

5. W.P.(C) No.9935/2014 is filed by the delinquent

employee G. Sreedharan Pillai with the Joint Registrar of Co-

operative Societies (General), Kollam as the first respondent

and the abovementioned Bank as the second respondent. The

allegation therein is that in consequence to the completion of

the domestic enquiry post his superannuation, he was imposed

with a punishment of dismissal. That was an order in contempt

of the order of this court. On petition filed for contempt, the

order of dismissal was recalled. But the subsequent order of

the Bank treating the period of suspension as suspension, and

denying him the terminal benefits was even more strange, and

unsustainable. The delinquent was successful in challenging OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

the decision before the Arbitration Court, and the Tribunal has

confirmed that order in Revision filed by the Bank. Even though

the Tribunal's Order has been challenged by the Bank, there is

no stay granted by this Court. Hence, at present, there is no

order of dismissal or suspension pending against the

delinquent. He submitted Ext.P1 representation before the first

respondent to disburse his pending salary and terminal

benefits. Ext.P4 reminder has also not been attended to.

Hence, the Writ has been filed to direct the respondents to

consider the representation.

6. The Bank has filed a counter affidavit in the WP(C)

stating that the earlier W.P(C) 15703/2003 was filed by the

delinquent challenging the order of suspension. Subsequently,

the delinquent had filed W.P.(C) 23378/2003 seeking very

same relief as sought in the present Writ petition. This Court

had disposed of the aforesaid WP(C) 23378/2003 with a

direction to finalise the disciplinary proceedings within 3 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

weeks. Thereafter the delinquent filed W.P.(C) 25095/2004 for

mandamus to direct the Bank and the Joint Registrar to

disburse the areas of salary in consequence to the pay revision

as also the Provident Funds and arears of pension etc. The said

Writ Petition was withdrawn by the delinquent. The domestic

enquiry was conducted by a retired Principal of Co-operative

College, and after completion of the enquiry report was

submitted on 31/08/2004. After giving the delinquent an

opportunity to put forth his explanation, the sub-committee

ordered justification of the suspension and denied retiral

benefits, including pension to the delinquent. The appeal

preferred by the delinquent was rejected by the Board. ARC No.

25/2005 before the Arbitration Court was allowed and the

revision petition filed by the Bank was rejected for no valid

reasons and in consequence to that OP(C) No.1169/2012 was

preferred by the Bank. After the delinquent entered

appearance as the 2nd respondent, he filed I.A.592/2013 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

before this Court seeking clarification that the pendency of the

Writ Petition will not affect his right to initiate appropriate

action to enforce the orders of the ARC and the Tribunal. He

did not succeed in getting a clarification and therefore he has

filed this Writ Petition No. 9935/2014 which was made only in

the year 2016. The present Writ petition is filed on the grounds

of Res Judicata/Constructive Res Judicata. Hence the Bank

seeks dismissal of W.P(C)No.9935/2014.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties

in both the petitions. The two points which arise for

consideration in these petitions are thus:

1. Was the Tribunal justified in dismissing the revision

petition?

2. Is the petitioner in W.P.(C)9935/2014 entitled to the

relief of mandamus sought?

Point No. 1:

8. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

that interfering with the findings of domestic enquiry is to a

very limited extent and therefore, the Arbitration Court as also

the Tribunal were not justified in interfering with the

punishment imposed on the delinquent employee who has

committed a very grave offence of misappropriation and

dereliction of duty.

9. The main reason for setting aside the order of the

sub-committee by the Arbitration Court there is illegality in the

imposition of penalty consequent to the recalling of the earlier

order of dismissal, and no show cause notice was issued

before the passing of the modified punishment of treating the

period of suspension as suspension and depriving the

delinquent of the terminal benefits. It was also observed that

the delinquent was only a Senior Clerk holding additional

charge of a Branch Manager and as per the Rules, it was the

President who is to take action against a person employed as

Senior Clerk. The Sub Committee is authorised to take action OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

only against the Branch Managers which the delinquent was

not. The arbitrator also found that the penalty imposed by the

Sub-committee was not in accordance with the statutory

penalties specified in Rule 198(1) of the Kerala Co-operative

Societies Rules ('the Rules' for short). The challenge of the

delinquent that the enquiry officer was the legal adviser of the

Bank and therefore, such an enquiry is in violation of the

settled principles of natural justice, is also upheld by the

Arbitrator. The suit was decreed.

10. The revision filed before the Tribunal, was dismissed

although on some of the points, the Tribunal disagreed with

the Arbitrator. The finding that the Sub Committee was not

competent to impose punishment or take disciplinary action

against the delinquent as he was only a Senior Clerk, is not

held by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also disagreed with the

Arbitration Court on the point that the punishment imposed by

the sub-committee was not in accordance with Rule 198(1) of OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

the Rules. The finding of the Arbitration Court that the

domestic enquiry was illegal and the imposition of punishment

of dismissal were without rendering opportunity to the

delinquent of being heard is concurred with by the Tribunal. It

was observed by the Arbitration Court as also the Tribunal that

in view of the directions of the High Court that no punishment

for dismissal of removal from service shall be imposed in case

of failure to complete the disciplinary proceedings before the

date of superannuation, no punishment of dismissal or

removal of the delinquent consequent to his superannuation

could be made. The Tribunal agreed with the Arbitration Court

that the explanation is not from the delinquent for imposing a

penalty of dismissal could not be treated as an opportunity

given to him prior to the imposition of the modified

punishment that was ultimately imposed upon him.

11. One of the main arguments advanced by the learned

counsel appearing for the delinquent employee is that OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

departmental proceedings can be initiated and continued only

in terms of the Rules framed by the employer and that an

absence of any Rules as in the present case, the civil

proceedings against the delinquent employee subsequent to

his retirement should not have been continued. The learned

counsel relies on a catena of decisions of the Apex Court in

B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat and Ors. v. [(1978)2 SCC 202],

State Bank of India and Ors v. T.J.Paul [(1999)4 SCC 759],

Chandra Singh and Ors v. State of Rajasthan and Another

[(2003) 6 SCC 545], Girijan Coopertive Corporation Ltd.

Andhara Pradesh v. K. Satyanarayana Rao [(2010)15 SCC 322],

Dev Prkash Tewari v.Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional

Service Board, Lucknow and Ors [(2014) 7 SCC 260]. In

another decision of the Apex Court in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board

of Directors, O.S.F.C.and Ors [(1999)3 SCC 666], it was held

that in the absence of specific provision for its continuance

after retirement, the domestic enquiry lapsed, and that the OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

retired employee was entitled to all retiral benefits including

full salary for the suspension period preceding the retirement.

A Full Bench of the Madras High Court has while considering

the relevant provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act of

Tamil Nadu held that if there is no service Rules or bye-law as

of the Society empowering employer to continue departmental

proceedings, the employer has no authority to continue

departmental proceedings after retirement of the employee.

(See Andiyannan v. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies

[2015(3)KLT SN(C No.42) Mad(F.B)]).

12. The learned counsel appearing for the delinquent

has also submitted that the order of dismissal or removal from

service consequent to the departmental enquiry continuing

after superannuation would have the effect of dismissal with

retrospective effect, which is not possible in view of the

decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of Patiala and another

v. Ram Niwas Bansal (Dead) through legal representatives OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

[(2014)12 SCC 106] , wherein it was held that dismissal order

cannot be made prospectively operative, but that will not

invalidate the order of dismissal and it would only have

prospective effect. The learned counsel for the delinquent

would also rely on the decision of the Apex Court in Vijay

Singh v. State of U.P and others [(2012) 5 SCC 242] which held

that the under service law holding departmental proceedings

and recording finding of guilt against any delinquent and

imposing punishment for same is a quasi-judicial function and

not administrative function. Hence the authorities have to

strictly adhere to the statutory Rules while imposing

punishment. If the Rules do not empower the disciplinary

authority to impose "any other" major or minor punishment,

such punishment not prescribed under the Rules as a result of

disciplinary proceedings cannot be awarded as punishment for

a proved delinquency is regulated and controlled by statutory

Rules. Therefore, while performing the quasi-judicial functions OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

the authority is not permitted to ignore the statutory Rules

under which punishment is to be imposed. The disciplinary

authority is bound to give strict adherence to the said Rules.

Thus, the order of punishment being outside the purview of

the statutory Rules is a nullity and cannot be enforced against

the Appellant.

13. Referring to the allegations made against the

delinquent the learned counsel appearing for him submits that

there is no allegation that the delinquent had misappropriated

the amount. The initial allegation against him was that he was

not vigilant enough and that there was a lapse of supervision.

The specific allegation is that it was the bill collectors who had

misappropriated the amounts that they had collected from the

depositors. The criminal case registered against the delinquent

has ended in acquittal for want of sufficient evidence. Relying

on the decision of the Apex Court in Managing Director, State

Bank of Hyderabad and another v. P Kata Rao [AIR 2000 OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

Supreme Court 2146], the learned counsel submits that in a

case where misconduct was alleged against the the delinquent

and he was acquitted in the criminal case, as in this case, it has

to be held that the misconduct on the part of the delinquent

was neither willful nor there existed any fraudulent intention

on his part to falsify the account. While considering the

proportionality of punishment, distinction lies between the

irregularities constituting misconduct from the act of

misappropriation of finances causing loss to the institution.

The order of dismissal as also the subsequently modified order

of denying the delinquent the arrears of pay as well as retiral

benefits, according to the learned counsel is a punishment

which is grossly disproportionate to the allegations made

against him.

14. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

Bank submits that the disciplinary authority is expected to

prove charges on preponderance of probability and not on OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, it is urged that the

acquittal of the delinquent in the criminal case is of no

consequence as proof beyond reasonable doubt is what is

required in a criminal proceedings. The learned counsel relies

on the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of India and

others v. Narendra Kumar Pandey [(2013)2 SCC 740] in support

of his argument. It is pointed out that the delinquent was

employed as a manager of a branch of the Bank was doing an

act prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, or gross negligence

involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss, is an act

which is a misconduct sufficient to attract the penalty of

dismissal from service.

15. After taking into consideration the arguments

advanced by both sides, and the precedents relied upon by the

learned counsel appearing for them, I find that the findings in

the disciplinary proceedings is not something which is to be

interfered with on the basis of the evidence that is adduced OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

and there is a limited scope to upset the finding that arrived at

during the domestic enquiry. Management of co-operative

societies including Banks run by such societies come within the

purview of the Cooperative Societies Laws. The delinquent with

whom this Court is presently concerned with was employed as

a Senior Clerk and posted in charge of the branch as Branch

Manager. It is alleged that there was dereliction of duty on his

part for not having properly supervised the functioning of the

bill collectors who were put in charge of collecting money from

the depositors. This Court had specifically directed that the

disciplinary proceedings initiated against the delinquent to be

completed before his superannuation. In case it was not

possible to complete the enquiry before his retirement, no

punishment of dismissal or removal from service shall be

made. Admittedly, the disciplinary enquiry was completed only

subsequent to the retirement of the delinquent. Even though

the management had initially decided to impose the OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

punishment of dismissal of the 2nd respondent, it was recalled

and the punishment of treating the suspension and depriving

him of his retirement benefits was imposed. Rule 198(1) of

the Rules enumerates the punishments that can be imposed on

a delinquent employee. Rule 198(1)(g)(h) stipulates compulsory

retirement and dismissal from service, respectively, as

punishment. In the instant case the delinquent was intended to

be imposed with a punishment of dismissal from service. Such

a decision taken by the managing committee was against the

orders passed by this Court and therefore, the delinquent

moved for contempt. Realising the mistake, the original

punishment of dismissal from service was recalled and the

aforesaid punishment was imposed. Undoubtedly, this is not a

punishment which is a enumerated in Rule 198(1). Hence, the

present punishment was imposed on the delinquent. Rule

198(2) states that no kind of punishment shall be awarded to

an employee unless he has been informed in writing of the OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

grounds on which it is proposed to take action against and he

has been afforded an opportunity to include a personal hearing

to defend himself. The only notice that was served on the

delinquent was a notice of dismissal and the notice of

subsequently modified punishment was not served, admittedly.

Apart from the order of this Court directing the managing

committee not to impose a punishment of dismissal or removal

of service in case the disciplinary enquiry is not completed

before the retirement of the delinquent, there is also a Circular

No. 34/10 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on

03/07/2010 based on the judgment of this Court in

W.P(C)No.7490/2009. The Registrar is directed that the

disciplinary action under the Kerala Co-operative Societies

Rules, 1969, can be initiated and continued against the

employees of the Co-operative institutions, only till they

remain in service. The penalty as contemplated in Rule 198(1)

cannot be imposed on them after their retirement. Therefore, OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

all the disciplinary authority will take special care to ensure

that the disciplinary cases pending against the employees of

Co-Operative institutions are finalised expeditiously in any

case, before the concerned employees retire from service on

superannuation or within the period of extension of

suspension granted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

whichever is earlier. Moreover, Rule 198(6) makes it very clear

that no employee shall be kept under suspension for a period

exceeding six months at the time and in no case an employee

shall be kept under suspension for a continuous period

exceeding one year without the prior approval of the Registrar.

In the instant case, no such approval has been obtained. Under

the circumstances, the punishment of dismissal was apparently

illegal. The subsequent punishment imposed on the delinquent

is not found a place in Rule 198(1). Since the enquiry against

the delinquent employee is conducted in accordance with the

statutory provisions in the Rules framed, no punishment other OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

than what has been prescribed as per the statute could be

imposed upon the delinquent. I find no reason to interfere

with the impugned Order of the Tribunal. Point No.1 is

answered accordingly.

Point No.2

16. Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self

Financing Pension Scheme, 1994 came into effect in the year

1994. The delinquent in the instant case is governed by the

said scheme. Para 18 of the Scheme specifies that every

employee of a society to which this Scheme applies shall,

subject to the other provisions of the Scheme, be eligible for

pension under the Scheme. Sub-paragraph (2) of para 18 of

the Scheme stipulates that an employee who has been

dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or

inefficiency shall not be eligible for pension. In the instant

case, the applicant has not been dismissed or removed for the

reasons stated above. Hence, his retiral benefits including OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

pension, if eligible, cannot be declined.

In the result, O.P.(C) No.1169 of 2012 is dismissed for the

reasons stated in answer to point No. (1). WP(C) No.9935 of

2014 is allowed and the 1st respondent is directed to pass

appropriate orders on Ext.P1 filed by the petitioner to issue

directions to the second respondent Bank to disburse the

salary and terminal benefits due to the petitioner. The parties

are directed to bear their respective costs.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON JUDGE jg OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

APPENDIX OF OP(C) NO.1169/2012

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.5.2003 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK TO R2.

P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.5.2003 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK FOR THE SUSPENSION OF R2.

P3 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.5.2003 IN WP(C) 15703/2003 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

P4 : COPY OF ORDER NO.CRP(2) 3388/03 DATED 4.7.2003 ISSUED BY R1.

P5 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6.10.2003 IN WP(C) NO.23378/2003 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

P6 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 9.3.2004 SUBMITTED BY R2 TO R1.

P7 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.6.2007 IN WP(C) NO.25095/2004 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

P8 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK.

P9 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.2.2005 PASSED BY THE SUB COMMITTEE CHALLENGED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PETITIONER BANK.

P10 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.5.2005 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK.

P11 : COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION IN ARC NO.25/2005 FILED BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

P12 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED -/3/2006 FILED IN ARC NO.25/05 BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

P13 : COPY OF HTE AWARD DATED 28/10/2008 IN ARC NO.25/2005 OF THE CO-OP. ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

P14 : COPY OF HTE REVISION PETITION NO.142/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BANK BEFORE THE HONOURABLE KERALA CO-OP. TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

P15 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.8.2011 IN REVISION PETITION NO.142/10 OF THE KERALA CO-OP. TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

//TRUE COPY// OPC 1169/12 & WPC 9935/14

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9935/2014

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDNT DATED 10/12/2012.

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 13/12/2012 EVIDENCING DISPATCH OF EXT.P1.

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGE CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P1 REPRESENTATION ON 14/12/2012.

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 12/6/2013.

EXT.P5; TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGE CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P4 REMINDER LETTER ON 13/6/2013.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

EXT.R2(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.6.2007 IN WP(C) 25095/2004 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

EXT.R2(b) : TRUE COPY OF IA NO.592/2013 IN OP(C) 1169/2012 FILED BY R2.

//TRUE COPY//