Kerala High Court
Maneed Service Co-Operative Bank ... vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 27 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
BINCYMOL P.A., SENIOR CLERK (UNDER ORDER OF
SUSPENSION), MANEED SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, MANEED
P.O, PIRAVOM 686 664, RESIDING AT KUNNATHUKALAPPURAYIL,
MANEED P.O, PIRAVOM - 686 664
BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 MANEED SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, MANEED P.O, PIRAVOM 686 664
2 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, MANEED SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK, MANEED P.O, PIRAVOM 686 664
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
3 SRI.BIJU VARGHESE, CHAIRMAN, DISCIPLINARY SUB
COMMITTEE, MANEED SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, MANEED
P.O, PIRAVOM 686 664
4 P.SHARANGADHARAN, DOMESTIC ENQUIRY OFFICER,
MANEED SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, MANEED P.O,
PIRAVOM - 686 664
SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).23134/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2021 & con.case
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 23134 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
MANEED SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.E 59,
MANEED.P.O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY.
SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR
SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN
SRI.HARISANKAR N UNNI
SMT.N.S.SHAMILA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES (GENERAL), CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM- 682 030.
2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(G), MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM- 686 661.
3 BINCYMOL P.A., SENIOR CLERK (UNDER ORDER OF
SUSPENSION), MANEED SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
MANEED.P.O., PIRAVOM, RESIDING AT
KUNNATHUKALAPPURAYIL, MANEED P.O.,
PIRAVOM, PIN- 686 664.
BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN
SMT.PARVATHY K - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).29403/2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2021 & con.case
3
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.29403/2021, 23134/2022]
Among the afore two writ petitions - which have been
heard together on account of the analogous facts and
circumstances presented therein - WP(C) No.29403/2021 has
been filed by Smt.Bincymol, who is working as a Senior Clerk in
the Maneed Service Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to
as the "Bank" for short); while WP(C)No.23134/2022 has been
filed by the said Bank.
2. Smt.Bincymol was placed under suspension by the
Bank on the basis of certain imputations and she challenges
the same, producing it as Ext.P1 in WP(C)No.29403/2021,
along with a further notice issued by the Bank on 03.08.2021,
marked as Ext.P2, containing the Memorandum of Charges
against her.
3. The specific case of Smt.Bincymol is that, both the
afore proceedings are incompetent since they have been
issued by the President of the Society, thus being in blatant
violation of the declarations of law by a learned Division Bench
of this Court in Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd
& Others v.Joshy Varghese & Others (2020 KHC 5394).
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2021 & con.case
4. While so, on the allegation that the competent statutory
Authority is refusing permission to the Bank to extend the
suspension of Smt.Bincymol, they have approached this Court
through W.P.(C) No.23134/2022.
5. I have heard Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar, learned counsel for
the Bank; Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel for
Smt.Bincymol A. and Smt.Parvathy K., learned Government
Pleader appearing for the official respondents.
6. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan vehemently argued that both Exts.P1
and P2 order of suspension and Charge Memo respectively in
W.P.(C) No.29403/2021 issued by the Bank are untenable and
without forensic support because they have been issued by its
President. He thus prayed that W.P.(C) No.29403/2021 be
allowed and W.P.(C) No.23134/2022 be dismissed.
7. In response, Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar, learned standing
counsel for the Bank, submitted that though the
aforementioned suspension order and charge memo have been
signed by the President of the Society, it has been issued under
the authority of the Managing Committee of the Bank and as
per specific instructions from them. In other words, his case is
that, though the impugned orders show that it has been issued
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2021 & con.case
by the President, it must be construed that he has done so on
behalf of the Managing Committee under their dictate, and
without any individual contribution having been made by him.
8. On hearing Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar on the afore lines on
an earlier occasion, I directed him to produce on record the
originals of the Minutes Book of the Managing Committee of
the Society and he has made the same available across the Bar
for the inspection of this Court. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan - learned
counsel for Smt.Binchmol has also gone through the said
document in Court.
9. When one examines the Minutes Book - copies of which
have also been produced by the Bank as Exts.R1(k) series along
with their counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.29403/2021,
which is certainly the same as the original made available to
this Court - it is evident that the Managing Committee took a
decision both to suspend Smt.Bincymol and to serve upon her a
charge memo. The minutes also contain that the specifics of
the Charge Memo; and therefore, the question is whether the
President has acted on his own, or merely subscribed his
signature to the proceedings of the Managing Committee.
10. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with
Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar in this regard because, even on an ex
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2021 & con.case
facie examination of Exts.P1 and P2 in W.P.(C) No.29403/2021,
it becomes incontestable that both of them start with the
heading "Proceedings of the President of the Maneed Service
Co-operative Bank Ltd". They are signed by the said Authority,
though he says that the same are being issued under the
authority of the Managing Committee. The Minutes Book of the
Managing Committee of the Society - both the copy and the
original - render it inescapable that the said Committee
certainly took a decision to suspend Smt.Bincymol, but they
authorised the President to issue appropriate orders. Similarly,
in the case of the Charge Memo, the Managing Committee has
recorded in their minutes the details of the charge to be issued
to her, but then again authorised the President to issue an
appropriate order. I certainly travel with the explanation of
Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar that Ext.P2 in W.P.(C) No.29403/2021
contains exactly the Charges as had been proposed by the
Managing Committee in their minutes.
11. However, the question is whether this is sufficient.
12. The law is well settled by this Court, including in
Joshy Varghese (supra), that the power to suspend an
employee or issue charge memo is vested with the Managing
Committee. It is not sufficient that they take a decision and
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2021 & con.case
authorise somebody to act on their behalf. This is because they
cannot delegate that power, which is statutorily vested in them.
13. Hence, when the Managing Committee could not have
delegated their powers to the President, the acme question is
whether the orders issued by him can obtain the imprimatur of
this Court. The answer to this certainly has to be to the
negative, because whatever be the explanation that
Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar may offer, it is clear that Exts.P1 and P2
in W.P.(C) No.29403/2021 has been issued by the President.
Whether he did so as authorised by the Managing Committee or
otherwise is irrelevant for the reasons that I have already
recorded above, particularly when he concedes that the same
were issued by him, though under the dictation of the said
Committee.
14. In the afore circumstances, I have no doubt that
Smt.Bincymol is entitled to succeed; and consequently that the
Bank cannot seek any permission for extension of her order of
suspension, namely Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.29403/2021.
Resultantly, I allow W.P.(C) No.29403/2021 and quash
Exts.P1 and P2; however, leaving full liberty to the Bank to
initiate fresh action against Smt.Bincymol in terms of law, after
following due procedure.
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2021 & con.case
As a consequence W.P.(C) No.23134/2022 is dismissed as
having become without any further purpose.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2021 & con.case
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23134/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.101/2021(1) DATED
28-7-2021 OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.VII DATED 6-
6-2022 OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
13-6-2022.
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2021 & con.case
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29403/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 28-
07-2021
Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT P1
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3-08-2021
ALONG WITH THE MEMO OF CHARGES
Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 9-08-2021
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16-08-2021
Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P4
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY
DATED 20-08-2021
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
DISCIPLINARY SUB COMMITTEE DATED 25-08-2021
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE DISCIPLINARY SUB COMMITTEE
DATED 27-08-2021
Exhibit P7A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
EXT.P7
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF
DEFENSE DATED 1-09-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE CONVENER OF THE
DISCIPLINARY SUB COMMITTEE
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2021 & con.case
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10-09-2021
ISSUED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER
Exhibit P9A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT
P9
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
17/6/2022
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. X DATED
25-6-2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R1 B TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
NO:101/2021(1) DATED 6/7/2021 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R1 C TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. II DATED
28-7-2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R1 D TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
RESOLUTION NO. XVII DATED 30-7-2021 OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R1 E TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 5-8-2021
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit R1 F TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 6-
8-2021 SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER GIVING
THE DETAILS OF THE DOCUMENTS
Exhibit R1 G TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO: IV (1)
DATED 16-8-2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R1 H TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO: IV DATED
16-8-2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R1 I TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. 1/2021 DATED
19-8-2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R1 J TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SIGNED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 31.8.2021 GIVING THE
WP(C) NO. 29403 OF 2021 & con.case
DETAILS OF THE DOCUMENTS PERUSED BY HER.
Exhibit R1 K TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. II DATED
28-7-2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R1 L TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MANAGING
COMMITTEE HELD ON 30-7-2021 CONTAINING
RESOLUTION NO. XVII
Exhibit R1 M TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.763/2021
OF PRIVAOM POLICE STATION DATED
29/7/2021
Exhibit R1 N TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
BYE-LAW OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
