Kerala High Court
G.Radhakrishnan Pillai vs The Joint Director (Audit) on 12 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 41462 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
G.RADHAKRISHNAN PILLAI
ACCOUNTANT, DECENT JUNCTION SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LTD. NO. Q.133 DECENT JUNCTION P.O,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 577.
BY ADVS.
P.N.MOHANAN
C.P.SABARI
AMRUTHA SURESH
GILROY ROZARIO
RESPONDENTS:
1 JOINT DIRECTOR (AUDIT)
OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR (AUDIT) OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM.
2 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (AUDIT),
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (AUDIT) OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLLAM.
3 CONCURRENT AUDITOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
DECENT JUNCTION SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (AUDIT) OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLLAM.
4 DECENT JUNCTION SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
NO. Q.133, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
DECENT JUNCTION P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 577.
SMT.PARVATHY.K - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No. 41462 of 2022
:2:
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
=========================
W.P.(C) No.41462 of 2022
==========================
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2023
JUDGMENT
The petitioner impugns Ext.P12 order of the 3rd
respondent - Concurrent Auditor of Co-operative Societies, on
the ground that it has been settled without adverting to his
contentions, even though this Court had earlier directed him
to do so through Ext.P10 judgment.
2. Sri.C.P. Sabari - learned counsel for the petitioner,
vehemently argued that the only reason given by the
Concurrent Auditor for objecting to the salary drawn by his
client, during the time when he was promoted earlier, was
that he had not attended the five day Training Program, as
mandated by the 4th proviso to Rule 185 (1) of the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Rules ('KCS Rules', for short), which is
only a directory one; and that, in any event, it would be now
irrelevant because, he had cured the said defects by attending
the said program, as evident from Ext.P6, subsequently.
WP(C)No. 41462 of 2022
Sri.C.P. Sabari alleged that, however, the Concurrent Auditor
has not considered any of these aspects, particularly whether
attending of Training Program by his client is directory or
mandatory; but has reiterated his earlier objections, by
carrying it over to Ext.P13 in a mechanical fashion. The
learned counsel, therefore, prayed that Ext.P12 be set aside.
3. In response, Sri.Prasad Chandran - learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent - Society, submitted that his client
supports the petitioner to the extent to which he was granted
promotion earlier on the strength of a valid resolution. He
argued that as long as said resolution is in force, the Auditor
could not have found the promotion given to the petitioner in
any manner to be in error, especially when his client also
takes a position that the Training Program, as mentioned in
the afore provision of the 'KCS Rules', is only a directory one.
4. The learned Government Pleader - Smt.Parvathy
Kottol, however, supported Ext.P12 pointing out that the
Concurrent Auditor has found that the Managing Committee
of the Society did not verify, at the time when the petitioner
was granted promotion, whether he had completed his
WP(C)No. 41462 of 2022
Training Program. She added that merely because he had
done so subsequently, would not justify his promotion from an
anterior date, when he did not have the said qualification.
She, however conceded, to a pointed question from this Court,
that Ext.P12 does not reflect any consideration by the
Concurrent Auditor as to whether the Training Program is a
directory qualification or a mandatory one; but argued that,
since it is mandatory, that the Concurrent Auditor has
recorded so.
5. Even when I hear the learned Government Pleader on
the afore lines, the fact remains that the specific contentions
of the petitioner, as also voiced in the earlier writ petition,
was that the Training Program was only a directory one.
Obviously, the Auditor ought to have considered this aspect
and answered it in Ext.P12.
6. Further, there is a larger question as to whether the
resolution passed by a Society can be intercepted by an
Auditor, when the same has not been rescinded through a
proper process by the competent Statutory Authority under
Rule 176 of the 'KCS Rules'. This aspect also does not find any
WP(C)No. 41462 of 2022
consideration in Ext.P12.
7. I am, therefore, of the firm view that entire matter will
require to be reconsidered by the 3 rd respondent; for which
purpose, Ext.P12 deserves to be set aside.
Resultantly, and for the reasons above, I allow this writ
petition and set aside Ext.P12; with a consequential direction
to the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter, after hearing
the petitioner, as also the Society; thus culminating in an
appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, the liberty of the Society to approach the
3rd respondent with any explanation to the Audit Objections,
is also left open.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
anm
WP(C)No. 41462 of 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41462/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CLASSIFICATION ORDER
DATED 29.07.2015 ALONG WITH STAFF
FIXATION.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FEEDER CATEGORY
APPROVED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR ON
21.06.2017.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED
12.07.2014 OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
PROMOTING THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF
SENIOR CLERK.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED
27.12.2014 PROMOTING THE PETITIONER AS
ACCOUNTANT W.E.F 01.01.2013.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF STRENGTH AND
SENIORITY LIST AS ON 31.03.2013.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE
TRAINING PROGRAM FROM THE AGRICULTURAL
CO-OPERATIVE STAFF TRAINING INSTITUTE.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE AUDIT OBJECTION OF THE YEAR 2014-
2015.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE AUDIT REPORT DATED 01.11.2016 OF THE
YEAR 2015-2016.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE AUDIT REPORT OF THE YEAR 2020-2021.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
19.09.2022 IN W.P.(C).NO.27602/2022 .
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
06.10.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE CONCURRENT AUDITOR.
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2022
OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
