Kerala High Court
Sandya K.S vs The Deputy Director on 6 September, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
2024:KER:68001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024/15TH BHADRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 31549 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SANDYA K.S
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O. BIBIN E.K., ERIMMAL VEEDU,
POOPPATHY PO,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 733.
BY ADVS.
O.D.SIVADAS
VARGHESE THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 020.
2 THE POOPPATHY KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM,
R-31 D, APCOS,
POOPPATHY P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 680 733.
3 THE CONVENOR
DISCIPLINARY SUB COMMITTEE,
POOPPATHY KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM,
R - 31 D, APCOS, POOPPATHY P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680 733.
2024:KER:68001
WP(C) NO.31549 OF 2024
2
4 MANAGING COMMITTEE
POOPPATHY KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM,
R- 31 D, APCOS, POOPPATHY P.O,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
PIN - 680 733.
SRI. V. K SUNIL - SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:68001
WP(C) NO.31549 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was working as Secretary of
the 2nd respondent Society. She was suspended
from service on 03.11.2023 by Ext.P1 order
passed by the President of the Society. On
13.12.2023, the President of the Society issued
Ext.P2 Charge Memo and Statement of Allegations
to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3
reply denying the charges. An enquiry officer was
appointed and he submitted a report finding the
petitioner guilty of the charges. Pursuant thereto,
the Disciplinary Sub Committee passed Ext.P5
resolution dated 15.05.2024 terminating the
service of the petitioner with retrospective effect
2024:KER:68001
WP(C) NO.31549 OF 2024
from 03.11.2023. Against Ext.P5, the petitioner
preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the 4 th respondent
Managing Committee invoking the provisions of
Rule 198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies
Rules, 1969 (for short, 'the Rules'). The Managing
Committee dismissed the appeal by Ext.P8
resolution dated 10.07.2024. Against Ext.P8, the
petitioner preferred Ext.P9 application before the
1st respondent, the Deputy Director, Dairy
Development Department invoking the provisions
of Rule 176 of the Rules to rescind Ext.P5
resolution of the Disciplinary Sub Committee and
Ext.P8 resolution passed by the Managing
Committee. The prayer of the petitioner in this
writ petition is for a direction to the 1 st respondent
2024:KER:68001
WP(C) NO.31549 OF 2024
to consider Ext.P9 application under Rule 176 of
the Rules to rescind Exts.P5 and P7 resolutions. A
declaration is also sought to the effect that the
proceedings issued against the petitioner by
respondents 2 to 4, are void as there are
procedural irregularities.
2. Sri.O.D. Sivadas, the learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that Exts.P5 and P8
decisions are against the provisions of the Kerala
Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for short, 'the
Act') and the Rules and are liable to be rescinded.
3. Sri.V.K Sunil, the learned Senior
Government Pleader, would contend that
challenge against Exts.P5 and P8 orders is not
maintainable before this Court and the same has
2024:KER:68001
WP(C) NO.31549 OF 2024
to be challenged before the Co-operative
Arbitration Court in view of the provisions
contained in Section 69(2) of the Act. The learned
Senior Government Pleader would further contend
that though Exts.P5 and P8 are referred to as
resolutions, they are in fact decisions taken by the
disciplinary committee and the appellate authority
under Rule 198(3) and (4) respectively and are not
'resolutions' coming within the ambit of Rule 176
of the Rules.
4. The Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules,
1969 provides for hierarchy of remedies against
the order of dismissal/termination from service.
Against Ext. P5 order of termination, the petitioner
invoked the remedy by way of appeal under Rule
2024:KER:68001
WP(C) NO.31549 OF 2024
198 (4) of the Rules. She has a further remedy
before the Co-operative Arbitration Court under
Section 69 (2) of the Act and an appeal to the
Co-operative Tribunal under Section 82 of the Act.
She has also a remedy under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. In the light of the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annamma K. A. v.
Secretary, Cochin Cooperative Society Ltd.
[(2018) 2 SCC 729: AIR 2018 SC 422: ILR 2018 (1)
Ker. 225: 2018 (1) KHC 258: 2018 (1) KLT 414], the
Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, both possess and
enjoy the concurrent jurisdiction to decide any
service dispute arising between the Co - operative
Society's employee and his employer and that it is
2024:KER:68001
WP(C) NO.31549 OF 2024
the choice of the employee concerned to choose
any one forum out of the two forums available to
him under the two Acts. Thus, the petitioner has
got efficacious statutory remedies against the
order of dismissal.
5. Rule 176 of the Rules deals with the
power of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to
rescind resolutions. This Court in Jayarani T v.
Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies
and others [2016 (4) KLT 653] held that, the
Registrar does not have the power to adjudicate upon
the service disputes in a society in view of the
provisions contained under Section 69. Accordingly,
no direction can be issued to the 1st respondent to
consider Ext.P9 application seeking to rescind Exts.P5
2024:KER:68001
WP(C) NO.31549 OF 2024
and P8 decisions dismissing the petitioner from
service.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed,
without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail
the statutory remedy under Section 69(2) of the Act
or any other remedy as may be available in law
against Exts.P5 and P8. All the contentions of the
petitioner are left open.
Sri.O.D. Sivadas submits that the remedy
under Section 69(2) before the Co-operative
Arbitration Court is not speedy and efficacious.
There is no basis for such an apprehension since
the Arbitration Court is even empowered to pass
interlocutory orders under Section 70 (2) of the
Act. This Court cannot be turned into a Court of
2024:KER:68001
WP(C) NO.31549 OF 2024
first instance to adjudicate service disputes of
employees of Co-operative Societies. If the
petitioner prefers an ARC before the Co-operative
Arbitration Court, I hope that a decision thereon
will not be delayed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SPR
2024:KER:68001
WP(C) NO.31549 OF 2024
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION
ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY
ON 03.11.2023.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO ALONG
WITH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
DATED 13.12.2023.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED
29.12.2023.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE COMPLAINT FILED BY
THE PETITIONER 27.04.2024 BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION ALONG WITH
LETTER WAS ISSUED BY THE DISCIPLINARY
SUB COMMITTEE DATED 15.05.2024.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT WAS
OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE
RTI ACT DATED 26.05.2024.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL WAS PREFERRED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MANAGING
COMMITTEE DATED 12.06.2024.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN
APPEAL DATED 10.07.2024.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION WAS
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.07.2024.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.
