Abhijith Sreenivasan vs The Joint Director Co-Operative ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7545 Ker

Kerala High Court

Abhijith Sreenivasan vs The Joint Director Co-Operative ... on 2 April, 2025

Author: Anil K.Narendran

Bench: Anil K.Narendran

WA NO. 480 OF 2025             1               2025:KER:27771


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

                                   &

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

   WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                        WA NO. 480 OF 2025

         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.02.2025 IN WP(C) NO.32791

OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

     1       ABHIJITH SREENIVASAN,
             AGED 28 YEARS,
             S/O. SREENIVASAN, THOOPRAM HOUSE, RANDUKAI,
             CHAIPAMKUZHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680724.

     2       ABHISHEK JOY,
             AGED 24 YEARS,
             S/O. JOY K.L, KUTTATTY HOUSE, PONNAMBIOLY,
             KUTTICHIRA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680724


             BY ADVS.
             GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
             NISHA GEORGE
             ANSHIN K.K


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1       THE JOINT DIRECTOR CO-OPERATIVE (AUDIT),
             OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR CO-OPERATIVE (AUDIT),
             KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003.
 WA NO. 480 OF 2025           2              2025:KER:27771



     2      THE KODASSERY- ELIJIPPRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, LTD
            NO.R-228,
            HEAD OFFICE, MECHIRA, KODASSERY P.O., THRISSUR
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680721


     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.03.2025, THE COURT ON 02.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WA NO. 480 OF 2025               3                   2025:KER:27771




                          JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High

Court Act, 1958, by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.32791 of 2024.

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India by the appellants seeking the following reliefs:

"i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records leading up to Exhibit-P8 and P9 and to set aside the same; ii. Issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records leading up to Exhibit-P7 Audit Certificate and Audit Memorandum dated 04.10.2023 of the Joint Director of Co-operative Societies, Audit, Thrissur District for the Financial year 2022-23 to the extent it withholds the salary and other allowances to the post of Night Watchmen and to set aside the same;

iii. Issue a writ declaring that the direction to withhold the salary by the auditor is without power, authority and jurisdiction."

2. According to appellants, they are currently working as

peons in the 2nd respondent society. The post of Watchman was

vacant in the Bank. The 2nd respondent Bank invited applications

to the post of Night Watchman in the Bank. An outside agency

conducted the written examination for the post of Night Watchman WA NO. 480 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:27771

and the Managing committee of the 2nd respondent Bank

conducted interview for the watchman post. Accordingly, the

Appellants were appointed in the service of the Bank. But, after

the audit conducted for the financial year 2022-23, the Auditor as

per Ext.P7 audit certificate dated 04.10.2023, withheld the salary

and other benefits of the Appellants. Going by the Kerala Co-

operative Societies Act, 1969, ('the KCS Act' in short), the Auditor

did not have any authority to withhold the salary and other

benefits of the appellants for the service rendered by them. Now

the 2nd respondent Bank has issued Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 notices

dated 31.08.2024 to the Appellants stating that, following the

directive outlined in defect No. 1.2 of Exhibit-P7 audit report, the

Managing Committee of the respondent bank has decided to

withhold the Appellants salaries and other benefits starting from

01.09.2024. Hence the Appellants filed the writ petition.

3. As per the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2025, the

learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition granting liberty

to the appellants to file a reply to Exts.P8 and P9 show cause

notices, within a period of ten days. The 2nd respondent bank was

directed to decide the show cause notices after considering the WA NO. 480 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:27771

reply, if any, filed by the appellants within ten days after affording

an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Being dissatisfied, the

appellants filed the above appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the

learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for

the 2nd respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

Section 64 of the KCS Act prescribes the power and scope of the

audit. Going by the said Section, the 1st respondent does not have

any authority to withhold the salary and other benefits of the

appellants. Exts.P8 and P9 show cause notices were issued on the

basis of the direction in the audit report to withhold the salary and

other benefits of the appellants. Hence, Exts.P8 and P9 notices are

bad in law and are liable to be set aside. The learned Single Judge

passed the impugned judgment without considering these

aspects.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government

Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent

submitted that the learned Single Judge has issued only a direction

to finalize Exts.P8 and P9 show cause notices, giving an WA NO. 480 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:27771

opportunity to the appellants to reply to those notices and submit

their part. Hence, no interference is needed to the impugned

judgment.

7. Section 64 of the KCS Act deals with scope of audit,

powers of the Director of Co-operative Audit and procedure for

audit. According to the appellants, the 1st respondent has no

jurisdiction to withhold the salary and other benefits of the

appellants and he can only point out the defect in the financial

affairs of the Society. Hence according to the appellants, Exts.P8

and P9 notices issued by the bank in pursuance to the report of

the 1st respondent cannot be acted upon.

8. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record

and the submissions made at the bar, we are of the opinion that

the said contentions can also be raised by the appellants before

the 2nd respondent while filing reply to Exts.P8 and P9 notices as

directed in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.

In the result, the writ appeal is disposed of making it clear

that the appellants can raise the question of jurisdictional aspect

also in the reply permitted to be filed to Exts.P8 and P9 show cause

notices and the 2nd respondent shall decide the jurisdictional issue WA NO. 480 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:27771

also at the time of deciding the matter as directed in the impugned

judgment.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE DSV/-