Kerala High Court
K.J.Amminikutty vs The Thiruvalla East Co-Operative ... on 23 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
K.J.AMMINIKUTTY,
AGED 68 YEARS, W/O. LATE ABRAHAM GEORGE PACHAYAIL,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, (UNDER SUSPENSION),
THIRUVALLA EAST CO -OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 3260,
ERAVIPEROOR P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA,
DISTRICT RESIDING AT PACHAYIL HOUSE, OONNUKAL P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 647.
BY ADVS.
SANTHOSH MATHEW
ARJUN RAGHAVAN
POOJA PANKAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE THIRUVALLA EAST CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
NO. 3260, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, ERAVIPEROOR
P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 542.
2 THE PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR,
THIRUVALLA EAST CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 3260, ERAVIPEROOR
P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 542.
3 THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NO. 6507,
BAKERY JUNCTION ROAD, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , KERALA 695 033.
*ADDL.R4 M.P.HIRAN, PART-TIME ADMINISTRATOR, THIRUVALLA EAST CO-
OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.3260, ERAVIPEROOR.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT - PIN- 689 542
(IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.11.2021 IN
I.A.NO.2/2021)
BY ADV SURIN GEORGE IPE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The question involved in the present writ petition is
whether the impugned order dated 09.11.2021 (Ext.P8) issued by
the 2nd respondent to the petitioner suspending him from the post
of CEO would be valid in law in the absence of concurrence of the
Reserve Bank of India as per the provisions of Banking Regulation
Act, 1949 as amended. The genesis of the case as spelled out
from the pleadings and arguments are that Part V of the Banking
Regulations Act, 1949 was though made applicable to the Co-
operative Societies subject to the modification, but a non-
obstante clause vide notification No.39/2020 was inserted with
effect from 01.04.2021 making it clear that the provisions of the
Act particularly Part II-A prescribing the control of the RBI over
the management and its power as envisaged under Section 36AA
to remove Chairman, Director or Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or
other Officers or Employees, vest only with RBI.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner on 22.07.2021
was appointed as Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) of the respondent- Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank for a
period of two years effective from 01.08.2021. On cessation of
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
the tenure of the Board of Management on 04.11.2021,
respondent No.2 was appointed as Part-time Administrator vide
order dated 03.11.2021 (Ext.P4).
3. Petitioner received a communication dated 05.11.2021
Ext.P5 from the 2nd respondent pertaining to two employees and
senior clerks in respect of their working ie., handing over the
keys as well as of not arranging staff, on the basis of some
complaint alleged to have been made by the staffs.
4. Apprehending that the respondent No.2 would impede
the working of the petitioner regarding conduct of the business
much less allocation and de-allocation of the work, a W.P.
(C)No.25400/2021 was filed in this Court alleging that the CEO of
the bank was not obliged to comply with the directions of the
Part-time Administrator. Vide order dated 12.11.2021, this Court,
while issuing notice to the Senior Government Pleader, issued
certain directions permitting the petitioner to function as per law
without being physically obstructed or threatened or intimidated
by respondent No.2, who was arrayed as respondent No.4 in the
aforementioned writ petition, with a rider that if the conduct of
the petitioner invited legal consequences, the competent
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
authority without causing any physical obstruction or threat could
do so under the provisions of the law.
5. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner
was served with the impugned order dated 09.11.2021 Ext.P8
whereby she was suspended. Sri.Santhosh Mathew with Sri.Arjun
Raghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the impugned order suffers from illegality,
travesty much less fallacity on the following legal points:
1) Section 36AA of Part-II A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949
dealing with the control over the management clearly specifies
that RBI has the power to remove the managerial and other
persons from the office and no other person.
2) There would not have been any impediment for the
Administrator-respondent No.2 to act as per the provisions of the
Act but after obtaining the concurrence of the RBI.
3) Though Ext.P8 reveals that a formal intimation had been sent
to the RBI but in the absence of any concurrence, the order ex-
facie is wholly unsustainable much less atrocious.
6. After this Court had interdicted in the order impugned
vide order dated 12.11.2021, certain subsequent events had
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
taken place which would demonstrate intimidative and deliberate
rancor nursed by respondent No.2 in as much as that vide
communication dated 15.11.2021 (Ext.P15) as an eye-wash in
compliance of the interim order, was purported by re-inducting as
CEO of the society but without any duties and powers.
7. On 15.11.2021 circular was issued to all employees to
report the newly appointed CEO, who was the General Manager.
In other words all the powers of the Managing Director were
vested with the General Manger as the Administrator had not
delegated any power to the CEO ie., the petitioner, owing to the
interim order passed by this Court. It was also made clear that till
then all the employees except CEO are directed to act according
to the directions/instructions issued by the General Manager in
charge, ie., CEO.
8. It was next submitted that by bringing the
aforementioned subsequent events to knowledge of this Court,
this Court vide order dated 15.11.2021 exercised the powers
under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, called upon
respondent No.2 to report an appearance but on the request of
the learned counsel for the respondents, two days' time was
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
granted.
9. He would submit that as per the contents of paragraph
29 of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 dated 18.11.2021
petitioner was restored to the post of Chief Executive Officer but
there was no reference to the circular dated 17.11.2021 as well
as another order of even date whereby the powers and duties of
the CEO were restored to the petitioner. Thus the act of the
respondents in playing hide and seek in the court is
contumacious. It is not known whether the circular of 17.11.2021
has been withdrawn with a back date or otherwise. As per Ext.P2
dated 25.06.2021 it was made clear that the powers under
Sections 36AA and 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949
leading to appointment, reappointment and termination and
removal of the Managing Director, whole time director in the
Primary Urban Co-operative Bank much less the appointment of
CEO would be subject to the prior approval of RBI in terms of the
earlier issued guidelines dated 31.12.2019 and before that Clause
12 of the previous circular also enshrined that the RBI shall have
the power to remove any member of Board of Management or
the CEO if the person is not found to be meeting with the criteria
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
prescribed by the RBI or found to be acting in the manner
detrimental to the interests of the bank or depositors or both.
10. On the contrary, Sri.Surin George Iype, learned
counsel representing the respondents submits that ex-facie the
appointment of the petitioner as CEO is without jurisdiction.
Attention of this Court in support of the aforementioned
argument has been drawn to a communication of the RBI dated
27.08.2021 Ext.R1(d) as it lack the fresh approval of the RBĪ.
Order dated 17.11.2021 restoring the power to the petitioner was
communicated on 18.11.2021 as per the local delivery Register.
11. Once the appointment of the petitioner was without
jurisdiction in the sense without the approval of the RBI, the
newly appointed Administrator, as per the provision of clauses of
bye-laws of Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank, is not denuded to
suspend or remove him without the concurrence of the RBI. In
this regard provisions of clauses 39(xvii) and 35(xxvii) have been
referred to. The justification regarding the non-approval of the
RBI has been build up only during the pendency of the case by
relying upon interim order of this Court Ext.16 in a writ at the
instance of one Upendranathan Nair, with regard to the
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
restraining of his appointment as CEO and thereafter vide Ext.P17
the aforementioned writ petition was withdrawn with a liberty to
challenge fresh circular dated 25.06.2021, Ext.P2 herein. There
were series of complaints regarding the working of the petitioner
and it is on that aspect suspension order was passed which is not
punitive in nature. It is only meant for interim measures for
better working and management of the society. Also that
petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before
the Central Government under section 36AA.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
appraised the paper book.
13. The argument of Sri. Surin George Iype pertaining to
the veracity of appointment of the petitioner is wholly misplaced
as it could not be subject matter of the writ petition or any
independent writ or in absence any counter claim and the
reasoning would only follow as per the question extracted above.
Regarding non-availment of efficacious remedy, there would have
been some force in the argument of Sri.Surin George Iype as
provided under Section 33AA, but from the perusal of the order
as well as the tenor, the order impugned suspending the
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
petitioner from the post of CEO without the concurrence of the
RBI is without jurisdiction and in such circumstances, aggrieved
party is not prevented from availing the extra ordinary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view
of the aforementioned the argument the non-availment of the
efficacious remedy is hereby rejected.
14. By virtue of an amendment brought up on the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949 working of the respondent Co-operative
Society came under the control and supervision of RBI ie., the 3 rd
respondent much less the procedure with regard to the
appointment of CEOs. The powers of the CEO are specifically
enumerated in Clause 4(viii) of the definitions as 'Chief Executive
Officer' means the Managing Director appointed by the Board of
Directors and if the Managing Director is not appointed then the
General Manager or Manager or Secretary appointed by the
Board of Directors of the Bank would be Chief Executive Officer.
With the aforementioned aim in mind, the RBI came out with
guidelines dated 31.12.2019 regarding Constitution of Board of
Management in Primary Urban Co-operative Banks (herein after
called UCBs). Clause 12 of the guidelines clearly specifies that the
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
RBI had the power to remove any member of Board of
Management and/or the CEO if not found to be not meeting the
criteria prescribed the RBI. The Clause 12 reads thus:
"12. RBI's powers over BOM and CEO
RBI shall have powers to remove any member of BoM and/
or the CEO if the person is found to be not meeting the
criteria prescribed by RBI or acting in a manner detrimental
to the interests of the bank or its depositors or both. The
BoD shall seek concurrence from RBI before removing any
member of the BOM / accepting the resignation tendered by
any member of the BOM. RBI shall also have powers to
supersede the BoM if the functioning of BoM is found
unsatisfactory. After removal of the member of BoM or CEO
or supersession of BOM, BOD shall appoint a new member or
CEO or constitute a new BOM as the case may be within a
period of three months. As an interim arrangement, BOD
may carry out the functions of BoM."
15. After the amendment of the Baking Regulation Act in
view of the powers as per Sections 36AA and 56 which are
relevant for the writ petition, Urban Co-operative Societies would
appoint CEO only with prior approval of RBI in terms of the
guidelines dated 31.12.2019 Ext.P1 till the completion of his/her
tenure or for a period of three years. It is in that background the
petitioner was appointed and till date except the filing of the writ
petition as per Exts.P16 and withdrawal thereof by Ext.P17 there
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
is no other writ pending challenging the appointment of the
petitioner. Section 56 of Part-V of the Banking Regulation Act,
1949 brought Co-operative Banks within the definition of banking
company. it is axiomatic to extract the contents of the impugned
order dated 9.11.2021 suspending the petitioner, Ext.P8. The
same reads thus:
Proceedings of the Part Time Administrator of the
The Tiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd.No.3260
Present- M.P.Hiran, Deputy Registrar of Co.op. Societies
(Admn) Office of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Pathanamthitta
No. Admn 1/2021 Dated 09.11.2021
Sub: Suspension of Chief Executive Officer-reg.
Ref:1)Letter to Joint Registrar dated 08.11.2021 sent by Part
Time Administrator.
2) Letter to the Reserve Bank of India dated
08.11.20212021sent by Part Time Administrator.
3) Letter No. SRL PTA /1387/2021 of Joint Registrar
(General) Pathanamthitta dated 09/11/2021.
4) Resolution No.1 of Part Time Administrator dated
09.11.2021
This is to inform Smt.K J Amminikutty, the present
Chief Executive Officer of the Bank as given here under.
While you are serving as the Chief Executive Officer of
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
the Tiruvalla East Co-operative Bank you have deliberately
disobeyed my written direction to arrange 3 staff employees
from Head Office to the Punnaveli, Chunkappara and Vaipur
branches of the Bank in place of the staff who were working
there had applied for leave. Due to your deliberate
disobedience to my direction Punnaveli, Chunkappara and
Vaipur branches of the bank could not functioned for 3
consecutive days on 05, 06 and 8th November 2021, which
caused severe difficulties to so many customers of the Bank
and the Bank also faced heavy business loss. Further, I have
given a written direction on 06.11.2021 to produce before
me the records related to your appointment, bye-law of the
Bank and some other informations related to the employees
working in the head office. But you deliberately denied to
produce the records and information that I asked to produce.
More than that you have shown a hasty approach towards
me and directly returned to me the written direction given to
you stating that you are not ready to accept any direction
from me. In addition to that you have filed a writ petition
before the Honourable High Court of Kerala stating utmost
baseless allegations against me and your subordinate
employees that Part Time Administrator along with certain
employees attempted to physically assault you. This is most
agonizing humiliation towards your superior authority as well
as your subordinate employees. The above stated acts
occurred from your part are grave indiscipline, humiliation
towards the superior authority and serious lapses of duty
entrusted with you.
In the aforesaid circumstance the Part Time
Administrator have intimated your misdeeds to the Reserve
Bank of India and the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-
operative Societies Pathanamthitta by ref. no. (1) and (2).
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
The Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies
Pathanamthitta by ref. no. (3) permitted the Part Time
Administrator to take appropriate action against you so as to
ensure the smooth functioning of the bank.
So by resolution no. I of the proceedings of the Part
Time Administrator dated 09.11.2021, it is resolved to
suspend Smt. K J Amminikutty the present Chief Executive
Officer of the bank from the service and the responsibilities
of the Chief Executive Officer of the bank with immediate
effect, pending enquiry. You will be given detailed charge
sheet shortly and also will be given enough opportunities to
make your defence before taking any further action.
You are further required to hand over immediately on
receipt of this order all records, documents, valuables and its
locking keys supposed to be kept under your custody being
the Chief Executive Officer as per law to Sri. P G
SanthoshKumar, Senior accountant of the Bank who is now
appointed in charge of the General Manager of the Bank as
per my order. Any lapses in hand overing the afore stated
things to the newly appointed General Manager in charge will
attract serious repercussions including criminal procedures.
This order is communicated to you directly thorough
Sri. Jithesh Chandran, the officer in charge of establishment
section, your email, whatsapp and also registered post with
acknowledgment due.
Part Time Administrator"
16. On perusal of the contents extracted hereinabove, it is
evident that the alleged misdeeds of the petitioner though was
intimated to the RBI as well as the Joint Registrar (General) of
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
the Co-operative Societies, Pathanamthitta in the absence of any
concurrence from the RBI, petitioner was removed from the
charge and control of CEO. Prima facie finding merit in the
contentions of Sri.Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel on behalf of
the petitioner, this Court on 12.11.2021 passed the following
order:
"The petitioner as per the submission of Mr.Santhosh
Mathew, learned counsel, on 22.07.2021, was appointed as
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Respondent Thiruvalla East
Co-operative Bank for a period of two years from
01.08.2021. Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1956 was
though made applicable to the Cooperative Societies subject
to modification but the non obstante clause was inserted
with effect from 01.04.2021 by notification No.39/2020.
Thus for all intends and purposes the provisions of the Act
particularly part II(A) dealing with the Reserve Bank of India
control over the management and it's power, envisaged
under Section 36AA, to remove the Chairman, Director or
Chief Executive Officer or other Officers or employee vested
with only RBI and that too after compliance of the principles
of natural justice. It was further argued that had the order
been passed by the RBI petitioner would have an alternative
remedy of preference of an appeal before the Central
Government. The term of the Society expired on 04.11.2021
and as an interim measure a part time administrator was
appointed vide order dated 03.11.2021 Ext.P4.
2. On appointment of the part time administrator,
respondent No.2, petitioner received a communication dated
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
05.11.2021 from the respondent No.2 with regard to two
employees and Senior Clerks regarding handing over of the
keys and of not arranging two staffs on the basis of some
complaint made by the staffs. Apprehending that the
respondent No.2 was hampering with the working of the
petitioner being against the byelaws and the rules of
business pertaining to the allocation/de-allocation of the
work, petitioner approached this Court vide Writ Petition (C)
No.24500/2021 by categorically pleading that the CEO of
the Bank was not obliged to comply with the direction of a
part time Administrator who was arrayed as respondent No.4
therein. This Court while considering the submissions of the
petitioner as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader
issued a slew of following directions by adjourning the
matter to 16.11.2021.
i)that the petitioner would be allowed to function as per law
without being physically obstructed or threatened or
intimidated by any person including respondent No.4 to 10.
ii) if the petitioner chooses to disregard the directions in the
communication dated 05.11.2021 Ext.P2 in the other writ
petition and Ext.P5 in the present writ petition, such conduct
invites legal consequences; certainly the competent
authority without causing any physical obstruction or threat
can do under the provisions of the law, much less in
accordance with law, that is by following due procedure.
3. Without putting any appearance or objection to
the averments in the writ petition respondent No.2 nursed
rancour against the petitioner by suspending her vide
impugned order dated 09.11.2021 Ext.P8 which is totally
against the provisions of Section 36AA of the Banking
Regulations Act, 1956 as the power to remove Director, CEO
and other person referred to therein only vested with
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
Reserve Bank of India. Though the impugned order Ext.P8
only reveals the formal communication/intimation to the RBI
but there is no such delegation or order of the RBI. In fact
such an act mounts to achieving the purpose as indicated in
Ext.P2 by ignoring the directions of this Court. In fact it
tantamounts to over reaching the order of this Court much
less a contemptuous Act. Issue notice before admission by
speed post all the respondents. In the meantime there shall
be an interim stay qua impugned order dated 09.11.2021
Ext.P8. As a consequence of the aforementioned order, it is
made clear that the petitioner shall be permitted to continue
and discharge the duty of the CEO which would be subject to
the outcome of the writ petition."
17. As a fall out of the aforementioned order
nomenclature of CEO to the petitioner was restored but as
regards the powers and responsibilities of CEO it was made clear
that the same shall be assigned later subject to the outcome of
the pending writ petition. Relevant paragraph of the
communication Ext.P15 reads thus:
"However, with atmost respect towards Ref: No.6 order
issued by the Honourable High Court, I here by permit you to
re-join in your office as the CEO appointed under Ref:1 RBI
circular. Your powers and responsibilities being CEO will be
assigned later subject to the outcome of the pending writ
petition filed by your good self, the petition I have sent to
Reserve Bank of India and also the writ appeal decided to file
against Ref:6 court order."
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
18. When this fact was brought to the notice of this Court
by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner this
Court on 15.11.2021 passed the following order:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner has made an oral
mention in this Court for taking up the matter by placing on
record a communication dated 15.11.2021 with a prayer that
as an eye-wash, the respondents have complied with the
order but the contents of the letter would reveal not only
contemptuous act but willful disobedience of the order, which
falls within the parameters/provisions of Article 215 of the
Constitution of India. In order to lay emphasis on the
provisions of the Act, the relevant portion of the
communication dated 15.11.2021 have been pointed out,
which are extracted herein below:
"Subsequent your suspension form the service, I
have given to Sri.P.G. Santhosh Kumar the
available senior officer in the Bank, the charge of
the General Manager by Ref:No.5 resolutions
shown above by invoking my power in lieu of
Board of Directors and thus now all powers and
responsibilities under Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act, Rules and the bye-laws of the Bank
are entrusted with him as being he is the General
Manager in charge of the Bank. As now the Bank
is smoothly functioning, I being the Administrator
decided to continue him in the charge of the
General Manager with all powers and
responsibilities in accordance with the bye-laws of
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
the society as well as the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act and Rules made their under by
Ref:No.7 resolution.
However, with atmost respect towards
Ref:No.6 order issued by the Honourable High
Court, I here by permit you to re-join in your
office as the CEO appointed under Ref:1 RBI
circular. Your powers and responsibilities being
CEO will be assigned later subject to the outcome
of the pending writ petition filed by your good self,
the petition I have sent to Reserve Bank of India
and also the writ appeal decided to file against
Ref:6 court order.
I direct you to attend in the office of CEO of
the bank as appointed under Ref:No.1 circular and
occupy the cabin prepared for you in the head
office of the Bank forthwith."
He submitted that general public has a faith in the
system of law and the order of this Court, if are allowed to
be exploited with the impunity like of one in the present
case. There will be no rule of law governing the public offices
and thus urge this court to take an action in accordance with
provisions of Article 215. In exercise of the powers under
Article 215 of the Constitution India which empowers the
High Court to take the powers of contempt. On going
through the plain and simple language of the
communication, petitioner has not been only threatened of
the filing of the writ appeal, which according to the
submission of Sri.Santhosh Mathew would not lie against the
ex-parte as the remedy is under Article 226(3). At this stage
Sri.Surin George, learned counsel for the Administrator,
respondent No.2 has put in appearance and submits that
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
before this Court issues a notice under Article 215 of the
Constitution of India, seeks two days time to file an affidavit
qua the contents of the communication dated 15.11.2021.
The prayer of Sri.Surin George is fair and just and most
innocuous. Thus, I accord two days time to the respondent
represented by Sri.Surin George Iype to file an affidavit in
this regard before this Court takes an action. Post on
18.11.2021.
19. It is a matter of record that against the order dated
12.11.2021 a W.A.No.1510/2021 was preferred wherein all the
submissions including the maintainability as well as the
appointment of the petitioner as CEO were raised but the said
intra-court appeal was held to be not maintainable in view of
Section 5(1) of Kerala High Court Act. Though in paragraphs 20,
21, 22 and 24 the Division Bench also dealt with the powers of
the CEO as well as of the Administrator and by noticing the
contention it was observed that both sides may focus on the main
duties and responsibilities for better functioning of the societies
and exercise the duties and functions strictly in the manner as
envisaged in the provinces allotted to them in terms of annexure-
I ie., bye-law and other applicable laws and rules. Relevant
paragraph of the order of the Division Bench reads thus:
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
"24. Before parting with this case, we would point out that
both sides may focus on their main duties and responsibilities
shall be in relation to the better functioning of the 1st
appellant Bank and to exercise the duties and functions
strictly in a manner as envisaged in the provinces allotted to
them in terms of the specific provisions in Anx.I Bye Laws or
any other applicable norms and Rules in that regard."
20. No order or any communication has been placed on
record enabling this Court to prima facie form an opinion that
the concurrence of the RBI before suspending the petitioner from
the control and charge of the CEO was ever obtained.
21. This Court has also been brought to the notice of an
order dated 16.11.2021 passed in W.P.(C).No.24500/21
preferred by the petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court
against respondent No.2 not to physically obstruct in the
functioning and discharging of the duties of CEO. This Court
directed the petitioner to function in the capacity of CEO without
any let or interference from any of the party respondents therein.
Paragraph 6 of the order in W.P.(C).No.24500/21 reads as under:
"6. Even when I hear Sri.M.Saseendran on the afore
lines, the fact remains that, as long as the petitioner
continues as the CEO of the Bank - either under orders of
this Court or otherwise - she is entitled to function in such
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
capacity, without any let or interference from any of the
party respondents. It is only if she is legally removed, can
the protective umbra of the afore interim order be lost to
her.
In the afore perspective, I order this writ petition and
confirm the interim order, dated 08.11.2021, afore
extracted; with a consequential direction to the 3rd
respondent, to ensure that the petitioner is afforded
effective and adequate protection, while she discharges her
functions as the CEO of the Bank; for which purpose, if she
makes a complaint against any obstruction, including to
enter her work space or such other, necessary action shall
be taken swiftly and quickly against the party respondents,
including by registration of necessary cases, if so required."
Thus the order of suspension is bereft of any jurisdiction
much less respondent No.2 did not have the power to suspend
without concurrence of RBI and Ext.P8 is hereby quashed. Since
the petitioner has already been given powers and responsibilities
and control of the CEO in view of the communication dated
17.11.2021 and the circular of even date communicated to the
employees to report before the General Manager has also been
withdrawn on 18.11.2021. No further orders are required to be
passed to respondent No.2 viz.a.viz. entrusting of the powers of
CEO/petitioner.
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
This writ petition stands allowed. This Court is sanguine of
the fact that the respondent will adhere by giving due regard and
respect to the orders of this Court.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
nak
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25123/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.
DOR(PCB).BPD.CIR.NO.8/12.05.002/2019-20
DATED 31/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.
DOR.GOV.REC.25/12.10.000/2021-22 DATED
25.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
24.08.2021 IN WPC NO. 20362/2020 PASSED
BY THIS HONBLE COURT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
JRGPTA/1387/2021CRB DATED 03.11.2021
PASSED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS LETTER OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.11.2021.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK RE ALLOCATION AT
THE HEAD OFFICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT
BANK DATED 22.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
08.11.2021 IN WPC NO. 24500/2021 PASSED
BY THIS HONBLE COURT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER OF
THE PETITIONER BEARING NO. ADMN 1/2021
DATED 09.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 09/11/2021 ISSUED TO SRI.K.G.
RAJENDRAN NAIR.
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 09.11.2021 ISSUED TO SRI, BIJU
JACOB.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 08.11.2021 ISSUED TO SRI. BIJU
O.K.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 09.11.2021 ISSUED TO SRI E.A.
ABRAHAM.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
09.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED NIL.
Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION/ORDER
NO.ADMN.03/2021 EST. DATED 15.11.2021
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
16/7/2020 IN WPC NO.14342/2020
Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
9/7/2021 IN WPC NO.14342/2020
Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF
THE PETITIONER DATED 22/7/2021.
Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE MAIL COMMUNICATION
BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
ON 3/8/2021, ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF
THE 'WEBINAR ON RISK BASED INTERNAL
AUDIT'
Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOMINATION FORM
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE
TRAINING PROGRAM 'CYBER SECURITY'
CONDUCTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, AS
ENDORSED BY THE THEN PRESIDENT OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
WP(C) NO. 25123 OF 2021
Exhibit P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P22 A TRUE COPY OF SCREENSHOT OF THE MAIL
COMMUNICATION BY THE OFFICIAL OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT, ON 19/11/2021
Exhibit P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
9/11/2021
Exhibit P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED
15/11/2021 ALONG WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE BYELAWS OF 1ST
RESPONDENT BANK
EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
DATED 22.07.2021
EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
DATED 18.08.2021
EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THEEMAIL SENT BY THE
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANGER, RESERVE BANK
OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED
27.08.2021 ALONG WITH CERTIFICATE UNDER
SEC.65 B OF INDIAN EVIDENE ACT.
EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 05.11.2021
GIVEN BY THE WRIT PETITIONER TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR
