Kerala High Court
Sheela M.C vs Pappinassery Vanitha ... on 24 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 23956 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SHEELA M.C
AGED 59 YEARS
PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, NEAR ASARIKOTTA, P.O.CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR
BY ADVS.
P.N.MOHANAN
C.P.SABARI
AMRUTHA SURESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 PAPPINASSERY VANITHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
LTD. NO.C 1219, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PAPPINISSERY,
KANNUR 670 011
2 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
OF PAPPINISSERY VANITHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.C 1219,
REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, PAPPINISSERY, KANNUR 670 011
3 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, 7TH FLOOR, DPI
JUNCTION, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014
BY ADVS.
B.S.SWATHI KUMAR
SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC
ANITHA RAVINDRAN
HARISANKAR N UNNI
SARANGADHARAN P.
NAVVYA UNNI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 23956 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
While the petitioner was working as a Secretary of the 1 st
respondent - Society, she was placed under suspension on certain
allegations and a Charge Memo issued to her. She says that she
replied to the same and that no further action was taken, until she
superannuated on 31.05.2021. She says that, however, the 1 st
respondent is now refusing to forward her pension papers to the 3 rd
respondent - Pension Board, nor to release to her the eligible retiral
benefits of gratuity - amounting to Rs.18 lakhs; Provident Fund of
Rs.14 lakhs, Leave Surrender and Employees Welfare Fund of Rs.10
lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs respectively.
2. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the 1 st respondent
respondent be directed to forward the pension papers to the Pension
Board and to disburse the afore amounts to her without any further
delay.
3. The afore submissions of Sri.C.P.Sabari - learned counsel
for the petitioner, were controverted by Sri.Harishankar - learned
counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, saying that the petitioner
has caused large amount of loss to the Society, which is evident from
Ext.R1(a) report settled by the Enquiry Officer/Unit Inspector, under
Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('KCS Act' for
WP(C) NO. 23956 OF 2021
short). He submitted that, therefore, the petitioner is not justified in
having approached this Court through this writ petition.
4. Even when I hear Sri.Harishankar on the afore lines, the
fact remains that the petitioner has neither been punished through a
proper disciplinary enquiry nor any amount quantified from her,
following the established procedure.
5. True, Section 65 enquiry appears to make certain
recommendations, but that by itself would not justify the Bank from
not disbursing the eligible retiral benefits to the petitioner or in
refusing to forward her pension papers to the Pension Board. The
only manner in which they can operate is under the mandate of
Section 198(8) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (KCS
Rules), by refusing to issue her a non-liability certificate, provided
they are able to establish that valid liability has been fixed against
her.
6. However, for doing this, they certainly will have to invoke
their remedies for quantification of liabilities, if any, in which
process, they may rely upon Ext.R1(a) Section 65 report also.
In the afore perspective and so as to obtain a balance between
the rival interests I order this writ petition in the following manner:
(a) The 1st respondent - Bank will forward the pension papers,
along with the necessary statutory contribution in favour of the
WP(C) NO. 23956 OF 2021
petitioner to the Pension Board; and will also release to her all her
eligible retiral benefits, within a period of four months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(b) The 1st respondent is at full liberty to invoke any remedy that
may be available to them, including under Section 69 of the KCS Act,
to fix the liability against the petitioner, subject to her remedies in
law.
(c) In the event the 1st respondent is able to obtain any
interdictory orders from the competent Authority, either under
Section 69 of the KCS Act or such other applicable provisions, the
rigour of direction (a) above will stand modulated on such terms and
they will then abide by it, subject to the final orders be issued by such
adjudicating Authority. To paraphrase, if the Bank fails to approach
the competent Authority for adjudication of the liability of the
petitioner or they fail to get any interdictory order within the afore
time frame, then direction (a) will be complied with by them without
fail.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 23956 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23956/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED 21.5.2020
ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 6.7.2020 OF
THE SECOND RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.7.2020 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2009 (2)
KLT 653 (PARA-9)
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2012 (2)
KLT SN 87 (CASE NO.80)
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2013 (6)
SCC 515
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2018 (1)
KLJ 636
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.R1(A) TRUE COOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ENQUIRY
REPORT UNDER SECTION 65 DATED 30.04.2018 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
