Kerala High Court
George Joseph vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 24 March, 2025
1
W.P(C) No.3302 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO.3302 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 SHERIN ROY, AGED 44 YEARS,
MEMBER NO.19607, POONJAR SERVICE CO -OPERATIVE BANK
LTD.NO.3963, POOJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT
VILAKKUNNEL HOUSE,CHOLATHADAM.P.O,POONJAR SOUTH,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686582.
2 T.S.SASI, MEMBER NO.16174, POONJAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LTD.NO.3963, POONJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT THEKKECHERIYAMPURATH, PERINGALAM.P.O,
POONJAR SOUTH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686582.
BY ADVS.
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
NISHA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
COLLECTORATE.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686002.
2 THE POONJAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3963,
POONJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686582.
3 THE ADMINISTRATOR,
THE POONJAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3963,
POONJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686582.
4 THE RETURNING OFFICER,
THE POONJAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3963,
POONJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686582.
2
W.P(C) No.3302 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
5 THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION,
3RD FLOOR,CO-BANK TOWERS,VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
SRI.T.JAYAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).7349/2019, 7312/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P(C) No.3302 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO.7349 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
CHARLES ANTONY, AGED 57 YEARS,
SECRETARY, UNDER SUSPENSION, POONJAR SERVICE
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 3963, POONJAR P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL)
COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 002.
2 POONJAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,3963,
POONJAR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 582,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY IN CHARGE.
3 THE ADMINISTRATOR,
POONJAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 3963,
POONJAR.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 582.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.JAYAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
SHRI.AJI JOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).3302/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
W.P(C) No.3302 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO.7312 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 52 YEARS,
ARAYKAPARAMBIL, CHENNAD.P.O, POONJAR, KOTTAYAM.
2 MADHU.E.M, EETTIKKAL, POONJAR,
THEKKEKARA P.O, KOTTAYAM.
3 JOMON THOMAS, IKKARA, PATHAMPUZHA P.O,
POONJAR, THEKKAKARA, KOTTAYAM.
4 BABY ALEX, EDAYADIYIL, POONJAR,
THEKKAKARA.P.O, KOTTAYAM.
5 SASI.T.S, THEKKE CHERIYAMPURATHU,
PERINGOLAM.P.O, POONJAR, THEKKEKARA, KOTTAYAM.
6 SHEREIN ROY, VILAKUNNEL, CHOLATHADAM.P.O, POONJAR,
THEKKEKARA,KOTTAYAM.
7 JOSEPH.V.M, VETTUKALLEL, PERINGALAM.P.O,
POONJAR THEKKEKARA, KOTTAYAM.
8 RAMADEVI.C.N, CHANDRAVILAS, POONJAR.P.O,
KOTTAYAM.
9 LELS JACOB, VEYALIKUNNEL, KUNNONNI.P.O,
POONJAR THEKKEKARA, KOTTAYAM.
10 MAJU MATHEW, PULIKKAL, POONJAR.P.O, KOTTAYAM.
5
W.P(C) No.3302 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
11 MAYA.S, PURAYIDATHIL, POONJAR.P.O, KOTTAYAM.
12 BEENA VINOD, KOONANIKKAL, CHENNAD.P.O,
POONJAR, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
KOTTAYAM-686001.
2 THE UNIT INSPECTOR RAMAPURAM,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686575.
3 POONJAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.3963,
POONJAR, KOTTAYAM-686582, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
SHRI.AJI JOSE
SRI.T.JAYAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).3302/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
6
W.P(C) No.3302 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO.42547 OF 2018
PETITIONERS:
1 LELS JACOB, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O. JACOB DEVASIYA, RESIDING AT VAYALIKUNNEL HOUSE,
KUNNONI P.O, POONJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
2 V.M JOSEPH, VETTUKALLEL HOUSE,
PERINGULAM P.O, POONJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
3 BABY ALEX, EDAYODIYIL HOUSE, POONJAR THEKKEKKARA,
POONJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
4 E.M MADHU, ETTIKKAL HOUSE, POONJAR THEKKEKARA,
POONJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
5 RAMADEVI C.N., CHANDRAVILASAM, POONJAR,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
6 MAYA S, PURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, POONJAR,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
7 BEENA VINOD, KOONANIKKAL HOUSE, CHENNAD P.O,
POONJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
8 GEORGE JOSEPH, ARAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENNAD P.O,
POONJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
9 JOMON THOMAS, IKKARA HOUSE, PATHAMBUZHA P.O,
POONJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
7
W.P(C) No.3302 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
10 MAJU MATHEW PULIKKAL, PULIKKAL HOUSE,
POONJAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. P.V.BABY
RESPONDENTS:
1 POONJAR SERVICE CO-OPEATIVE BANK LTD. NO.3963,
POONJAR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY - 686 581.
2 THE PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR,
POONJAR SERVICE POONJAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
NO. 3963, KIDANGOOR UNIT INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G)
MEENACHIL, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 577.
3 JANCYMOL K.J., ERATTUPETTA UNIT INSPECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES(G) MEENACHIL, PALA, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT - 686 577.
4 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G)
MEENACHIL, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 577
5 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G),
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 001.
6 STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
ADDL.R7 CYRIAC LUKOSE, S/O LATE LUKOSE, KIZHEKKATHOTTAM HOUSE,
POONJAR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686581.
(IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 25/01/2019 IN IA
01/2019)
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
SRI.C.P.SABARI
SRI.T.JAYAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHAJI THOMAS
8
W.P(C) No.3302 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
SHRI.AJI JOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.03.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).3302/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
9
W.P(C) No.3302 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.3302/2019, 7349/2019, 7312/2019,
and 42547/2018]
These writ petitions pertain to the affairs of the Poonjar
Service Co-operative Bank Limited, No.3963, Kottayam District.
The impugned orders under challenge are the proceedings
initiated leading to the supersession of the Managing Committee
of the bank, the surcharge proceedings initiated, the dismissal of
the Secretary, etc.
2. W.P(C) No.3302 of 2019 is filed by the members of the
Co-operative Society, who were elected during the election in
December 2013. They contend that an audit was conducted in
the Society with no adverse remarks till 2016-17 that without
incorporating any defects in the audit reports, a list of certain
alleged defects were presented in a separate paper, mainly in
relation to grant of loans, recovery, etc., that in response to a
complaint filed by the Bank, the Joint Director (Audit) issued
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
Ext.P1 constituting a three-member committee to examine the
defect, followed with Ext.P2 communication of the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies calling for a detailed report in that regard.
They further contend that to defeat the directions as above,
Ext.P3 was issued by pre-dating the same ordering an inquiry
under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act,1969 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Act"). Insofar as the term of the Managing
Committee was to expire by 28.12.2018, it was resolved to
conduct an election, for which resolution was forwarded to the
State Co-operative Election Commission, who in turn issued
Ext.P4 election notification on 14.11.2018, as per which the
procedure for election commenced and was to culminate on
23.12.2018, by the actual conduct of the election. It is at that
point of time, the petitioners point out, that the 1st respondent
issued Ext.P5 under Section 32 of the Act superseding the
Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society referred to
above and appointing an Administrator. As an offshoot of Ext.P5,
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
Ext.P6 was issued by the Election Commission on 19.12.2018,
cancelling the election notification. The petitioners have sought
to challenge Exts.P5 and P6 issued as above.
3. The Managing Committee members of the Society
have filed W.P(C) No.7312 of 2019 seeking to challenge Ext.P11
order issued by the Joint Registrar under Section 68(1) of the
Act. It is the contention of the petitioners that Ext.P11 does not
satisfy the pre-requisite under Section 68(1) of the Act. They
have also sought to challenge Ext.P6 order for inquiry under
Section 65 of the Act, which is also challenged in the earlier writ
petition, apart from challenging Ext.P8 report of inquiry
conducted under Section 65 of the Act.
4. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.7349 of 2019 is stated to
be the Secretary of the Society who joined the service in 1982
and rose in rank to the post of Secretary on the basis of seniority,
in the year 2014. He was to retire on 31.05.2019. On the basis
of the proceedings, which are the subject matter of the earlier
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
writ petitions, by Ext.P8 order dated 04.01.2019, the petitioner
was suspended. Later, the memo of charges at Ext.P9 was also
issued. It is at that point that the afore writ petition is filed before
this Court, and during the pendency of the writ petition, Ext.P11
was issued on 31.05.2019, dismissing the petitioner from
service. The order of dismissal is sought to be challenged by
amending the writ petition, which was permitted by this Court.
5. W.P(C) No.42547 of 2018 is again filed by the
Managing Committee members seeking to challenge the
supersession under Section 32 of the Act and the cancellation of
the election.
6. I have heard Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned
senior counsel assisted by Smt.Shilpa Sreekumar, for the
petitioner/s in the first 3 cases and Sri.P.V.Baby for the
petitioners in W.P(C) No.4254 of 2018. Sri.Haridas represented
the Administrator appointed under the impugned proceedings
and Sri.Bimal K. Nath, the learned Government Pleader,
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
appeared for the official respondents.
7. Sri.Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel would
contend that: -
i. The entire proceedings impugned in these writ
petitions were the result of a scheme evolved to avoid
the democratic process in the Society.
ii. Admittedly, the term of the Managing Committee was
to expire by 28.12.2018, and the formalities required
for conducting the election were completed, the
election itself to be conducted on 23.12.2018.
iii. The report under Section 65 of the Act dated
15.12.2018 was forwarded by the Assistant Registrar,
Pala, to the Joint Registrar, Kottayam, only on
17.12.2018. The fact that the order of supersession
was issued on the very next day - 18.12.2018, shows
the real intention behind the entire action.
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
iv. A reading of the impugned proceeding would show that
the requirements under the Act have not been
established. It is not the personal satisfaction of the
Joint Registrar that is required to initiate the steps
under the Act, and the records should disclose the
reason for arriving at the satisfaction.
v. No valid reasons have been pointed out to invoke the
exclusion provision under Section 32(3) of the Act.
vi. As regards the steps taken under Section 68 of the Act,
Ext.P11 in W.P(C) No.7312 of 2019, would show that
the officer was pre-determined to initiate action under
Section 68(1) and it is for that purpose, the inquiry
under Section 68 was constituted. Even the ingredients
under Section 68(1) are absent, from a reading of the
impugned proceedings.
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
vii. The suspension/dismissal of the Secretary was quite
unwarranted. The order of dismissal, though dated
31.05.2019, was dispatched only on 03.06.2019 and
by that time, the petitioner in W.P(C) No.7349 of 2019
(Secretary) had already retired.
viii. The Administrator is not having any power or authority
to issue a charge memo to an employee. He cannot
take any disciplinary steps against the Secretary.
ix. He would also rely on the amendment to Section 65 of
the Act by the Kerala Co-operative Societies
(Amendment) Act, 2023 and contend that the afore
procedural requirement, being clarificatory in nature
should be held as having retrospective operation.
8. Sri.Baby would adopt the submissions made as above
by Sri.Poonthottam.
9. Per contra, Sri.Bimal K.Nath, the learned Government
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
Pleader, would contend as under:-
i. The supersession of the Managing Committee under
Section 32 of the Act was validly initiated.
ii. The invocation of the provision under Section 32(3) of
the Act is to be read along with Ext.R5(c) FIR,
produced in W.P(C) No.3302 of 2019, in which event,
the respondents were perfectly justified in proceeding
under the Act without the opportunity/consultation
required under the law.
iii. The special report at Ext.R5(a) and the report under
Section 65 would show the nature of the malpractices
at the hands of the Managing Committee.
iv. With respect to the surcharge proceedings under
Section 68(1), he contends that the same is only a
preliminary step and the petitioner/s are entitled to file
objections explaining their stand and hence the writ
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
petition is pre-mature. He relied on the judgment of
this Court in Kudayathoor Service Co-operative
Bank Ltd. (Reji K. Joshy) v. Joint Registrar of
Cooperative Societies (General) [2022 (3) KLT
222 (F.B)] and the judgment in W.A No.1500 of 2021.
v. With respect to the writ petition filed by the Secretary
of the Society, he would contend that:-
a. The remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere under
Section 69 of the Act or Rule 198 of the Rules.
b. The order at Ext.P11 was issued on 31.05.2019
itself, since the stay granted by this Court was
vacated/clarified only on that date.
c. According to him, it is sufficient, if the order is
passed and sending the afore order on a later date
(03.06.2019) does not make any difference.
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
d. The Administrator is having every power under the
Act to take disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner as held by this Court in Mary v. Kuzhur
Service Co operative Bank Ltd. [2006 (1) KLT
323] as confirmed by a Division Bench in
Elamgulam Service Co operative Bank Ltd. v.
Gopinathan Nair [2007 (1) KLT 147].
e. The provisions of Section 32(4) of the Act also
empower the Administrator to take steps against
the Secretary (employee).
10. Sri.Haridas, the learned counsel for the Administrator,
supported the afore contentions raised by the learned
Government pleader. He would also rely on the averments in
paragraphs 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the
Administrator dated 24.09.2019 to point out about the actual
reason for the dispatch of the order of dismissal on 03.06.2019.
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
11. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the
connected records.
12. The following issues arise for consideration in these
writ petitions: -
i. Is the supersession of the Managing Committee under
Section 32 justifiable?
ii. Is the inquiry ordered under Section 68(1) justifiable?
iii. Is the disciplinary proceedings against the Secretary,
which culminated in his dismissal, justifiable?
13. The first issue arising for consideration as noticed
earlier, is with reference to the legality of the supersession of the
Managing Committee under Section 32. The Act under Section
32 entitles the Registrar to supersede the Managing Committee
after an inquiry by himself or through his subordinates or on the
report of the financing Bank, upon the "satisfaction" of the
Registrar that such supersession is required on account of the
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
various reasons pointed out under the section. The Act further
provides that before such supersession, the Managing
Committee is to be extended an opportunity to state its objection
and Sub-section (3) thereto provides that the opportunity of
hearing need not be extended to the Managing Committee and
the financing Bank, where the Registrar is of the opinion that it
is not "reasonably practicable to do so".
14. In other words, the supersession has to be on the basis
of the inquiry, upon verification of which the Registrar is to be
satisfied with respect to the requirement for supersession. In the
case at hand, the supersession order is issued on the basis of a
report, under Section 65, of the Assistant Registrar. This report
is placed before the Joint Registrar with a covering letter dated
17.12.2018. In other words, it was only on 17.12.2018 that the
Joint Registrar came across the Section 65 report. The inquiry
report under Section 65 has been produced along with the
counter affidavit in W.P(C) No.3302 of 2019 as Ext.R5(m) dated
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
15.12.2018. The report under Section 65 is running into as many
as 23 pages. Hence, it is on the basis of the afore report that
the Joint Registrar has arrived at the requirement to invoke the
provisions of Section 62. The satisfaction required under Section
32 is to be a subjective satisfaction on the basis of the inquiry
referred to under Section 32(1). It is hard to believe that the
Joint Registrar has arrived at the decision to invoke the power
under Section 32, the very next day of the receipt of the inquiry
report. Thus, it is clear that there was no application of mind
while issuing Ext.P5.
15. In this connection, the question as regards the
invocation of the provisions of Section 32(3) in paragraph 13 of
Ext.P5 order in W.P(C) No.3302 of 2019 is also to be noticed. The
Act requires consultation with the financing Bank and extension
of opportunity to the Managing Committee before passing the
order of supersession and it is only in a situation of exceptional
circumstances that Section 32(3) can be invoked. The
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
exceptional circumstances required out of Section 32(3) are not
established in the impugned order, apart from quoting the
section and stating that it is not practical to hear the Managing
Committee or the concerned financing Bank.
16. The afore findings have to be considered along with
the fact that the period of the Managing Committee was to expire
by 28.12.2018 and the election was already scheduled to be
conducted on 23.12.2018. When the election was so scheduled,
the requirement for superseding the committee which was in its
last leg, also ought to have been taken into account while issuing
the impugned order under Section 32.
17. I also take note of the contents of the Section 65 report
and find that even on the face of the alleged adverse findings
contained therein the requirement of immediate supersession on
the very next day is not made out. In such circumstances, I hold
that the supersession under Section 32(1) as per Ext.P5 order
dated 18.12.2018 in W.P(C) No.3302 of 2019, without
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
establishing the requirement to invoke the provisions of Section
32(3), is without justification and arbitrary.
18. While arriving at the afore conclusion I notice the
judgment of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Sanjay Nagayach and Others[(2013) 7 SCC 25], wherein
the Apex Court has categorically held that the Joint Registrar is
obliged to comply with the statutory formalities, including
consultation with the financing Bank, etc. without which there
cannot be an ouster.
19. The second issue arising for consideration is the
challenge raised to Ext.P11 in W.P(C) No.7312 of 2019. By the
said order issued by the Joint Registrar, an inquiry under Section
68(1) of the Act has been ordered, relying on the inquiry report
under Section 65. According to the petitioner, the requirements
to invoke Section 68(1) are not shown to exist in the case at
hand. According to the petitioner, the inquiry report under
Section 65 essentially alleges various illegalities/ irregularities in
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
sanctioning of the loans, and since such loans are sufficiently
secured, proceedings if any, can be only for the realization of
such loans and not with reference to the provisions of Section 68
of the Act.
20. However, I notice that the impugned order only
constitutes an inquiry under Section 68(1) of the Act. This can
only be taken as a step taken in the right direction, on the face
of the Section 65 inquiry report. The petitioner would be entitled
to file appropriate objections/explanations in that regard.
21. The last issue arising for consideration is with
reference to the dismissal of the Secretary/petitioner in W.P(C)
No.7349 of 2019.
22. Various contentions have been raised by either side
with reference to the legality or otherwise of the order of
dismissal. The fact that the petitioner was to retire on
31.05.2019 is not in dispute. He has filed W.P(C) No.7349 of
2019, seeking to quash Exts.P8 and P9 by which he has been
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
suspended from service, followed by the issue of a charge memo,
respectively. On 11.04.2019, this Court ordered no action to be
taken pursuant to the inquiry against the petitioner until further
orders are obtained from this Court. However, on 31.05.2019,
this Court clarified that punishment against the petitioner is not
to be imposed or given effect till the final order on the inquiry is
issued. The learned Government pleader and Sri.Haridas would
contend that it is on the basis of the afore, Ext.P11 was issued
on 31.05.2019. True, Ext.P11 is admittedly dated 31.05.2019.
However, the question is as to whether mere passing of the said
order, assuming it be so, is sufficient or whether it requires to be
served on the employee. The petitioner has pointed out that the
order at Ext.P11 was dispatched only on the evening of
03.06.2019, as evidenced by Ext.P10 postal receipt in W.P.(C)
No.7349 of 2019.
23. A perusal of Ext.P10 postal receipt, shows that the
order was dispatched on 03.06.2019 by 17:30. From this, it is
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
clear that the dismissal order is served on the petitioner only
after his superannuation.
24. In this connection, I notice the averments contained in
the counter affidavit of the Part-time Administrator who issued
Ext.P11 order. In paragraph 8 of his counter-affidavit, he states
that upon getting communication about the clarification granted
by this Court referred to above by around 04:40 PM he had taken
the "decision to dismiss the petitioner from service" as under:-
"8. The further allegation that I went to the bank at about
4.20 pm on 31-05-2019 for the purpose of attending a
fair well party of an employee is not fully correct. It is
true that I attended the said function also. I attended the
office of the bank with the intention to finalize the
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, in case
this honorable Court permits me to do the same.
Anticipating orders from this honorable Court I had made
preparations and arrangements for finalizing the
proceedings. At about 4.40 PM I got communication from
the counsel appearing for the bank that this honourable
Court had passed the clarificatory order, permitting to
pass final orders on the disciplinary proceedings against
the petitioner and implementation of the same only after
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
the disposal of the Writ petition. So the Counsel had
advised me that I can pass final orders, subject to
implementation of the same only after disposal of the
above Writ petition. Immediately on getting the said
information, I had taken the decision to dismiss the said
petitioner from service, and implementation of the same
was kept pending subject to the final disposal of the
above case. After taking the decision only I had left the
bank. All the allegations to the contrary are wrong and
hence denied. The allegation that the reply given by the
petitioner had not been considered and no decision was
taken on 31-05-2019 are absolutely false. As already
submitted above, I had duly considered the explanations
given by the petitioner in the light of the materials
available and entered into my finding in the order. The
decision was taken on 31-05-2019, before 5 PM. I was
waiting for the orders of this honorable Court for passing
a final orders. Immediately after getting information from
the counsel I had taken the decision. All the allegations
to the contrary are wrong and hence denied."
But in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit, it is categorically
stated as under: -
"11. It is true that the orders were communicated to the
petitioner through speed post dispatched on 03-06-2019.
As already submitted above, though the final orders on
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was
passed on 31-05-2010, before 5 PM the same could not
be typed on the same the day, due to want of time. 31-
05-2019 was a Friday and the succeeding days being
Saturday and Sunday, on those days also the orders could
not be got typed. I got typed the order only on Monday.
Immediately after the same I had entrusted a copy of the
same with one of my office staff for dispatching it to the
petitioner. The said staff had dispatched the same to the
petitioner."
A reading of the afore would show that, admittedly, the dismissal
order was typed on 03.06.2019 by pre-dating the same as one
passed on 31.05.2019.
25. In this connection, I take note of the judgment
rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Govt. Wood
Workshop v. State of Kerala [1987 (1) KLT 804], wherein
this Court has found as under:-
"14. The order of any authority cannot be said to be
passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published
or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is
not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept in the
file, because such order may be liable to change at the
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
hands of the authority who may modify it, or even destroy
it, before it is made known, based on subsequent
information, thinking or change of opinion. To make the
order complete and effective, it should be issued, so as
to be beyond the control of the authority concerned; for
any possible change or modification therein, This should
be done within the prescribed period, though the actual
service of the order may be beyond that period."
(underlining supplied)
The dictum laid down by this Court would apply to the facts and
circumstances of the case at hand also.
26. In the light of the above, there cannot be any dispute
about the fact that the order of dismissal was issued only after
the superannuation of the petitioner. Hence, Ext.P11 can only be
set aside, and I do so.
On the whole, the captioned writ petitions are disposed of
as under:
i. W.P.(C) No.3302 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No.42547 of
2018 are allowed, by setting aside the order of
supersession under Section 32 dated 18.12.2018.
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
ii. Since admittedly the term of the Manging Committee
was to expire and the election already scheduled to be
conducted, the steps to be taken to conduct the
election at the earliest.
iii. W.P(C) No.7312 of 2019 is dismissed, however
clarifying that the petitioners would be entitled to
defend the inquiry initiated pursuant to Ext.P11, in
accordance with law.
iv. W.P.(C) No.7349 of 2019 is allowed, by setting aside
Ext.P11 order passed by the 3rd respondent.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ln
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7349/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEFECTS NOTICED BY THE AUDITOR,
WHICH WERE INTIMATED TO THE SOCIETY.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
27.7.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ADDITIONAL
STATEMENT ATTACHED ALONG WITH THE AUDIT REPORT AS
PART-A.
EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL REPORT DATED 8.8.2018 ISSUED
BY THE AUDITOR.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION NO. E (2)
8353/2018/S.C.E.C. DATED 14.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE
ELECTION COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C.R.P.(1) 5044/18 DATED
12/10/2018 PASSED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C.R.P (1) 5044/18 DATED
18.12.2018 PASSED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ORDER NO. E (20
8353/2018/S.C.E.C. DATED 19.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE
ELECTION COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 3033/2018 DATED 4.1.2019
PASSED BY THE PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER DATED 28.2.2019.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE
DESPATCH.
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 31.05.2019 ISSUED
BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN
DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 07.06.2019.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
DATED 31.05.2019.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 8/94 ISSUED BY THE
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DATED 24.03.1994
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 30/2005 DATED
31.08.2005 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 07.03.2025 ISSUED BY
THE POONJAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK.
EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.07.2024 IN
CRL.M.C. NO. 9189 OF 2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT
EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE TENTATIVE BALANCE SHEET
EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 3 MEMBER TEAM.
EXHIBIT R3(D) TRUE COPIES OF THE RR NOTICES.
EXHIBIT R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNTS
UNDER RR PROCEEDINGS.
EXHIBIT R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DAILY CASH BALANCE.
EXHIBIT R3(G) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 17.01.2019.
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7312/2019
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REMARKS GIVEN BY THE
AUDITOR FOR 2017-18.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE MEETING
HELD ON 27/07/2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE
AUDITOR.
EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE AUDITOR.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION GIVEN BY THE
DIRECTOR OF AUDIT TO THE CO-OPERATIVE AUDIT
JOINT DIRECTOR, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE JOINT
DIRECTOR, AUDIT, KOTTAYAM DATED 23/10/2018.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE JOINT
REGISTRAR FOR AN ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 66 OF
THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION DATED
14/11/2018.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SENT TO THE OFFICE OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, MEENACHIL.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2018
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN
W.P(C)NO.42547/2018.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE JOINT
REGISTRAR UNDER SECTION 68(1) FOR AN ENQUIRY.
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS SHOWING AMOUNTS
OUTSTANDING FROM THE BALANCE ACCOUNTS.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE
REMITTANCE OF INTEREST.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL REPORT.
EXHIBIT R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42547/2018
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2018
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2018
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/10/2018
ALONG WITH SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DATED NIL
CIRCULATED IN THE AREA
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/12/2018
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R5(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL REPORT.
EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE NO.311 OF THE
KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MANUEL.
EXHIBIT R5(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH THE MAHAZAR
REPORT.
EXHIBIT R5(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER SUSPENDING THE
SECRETARY DATED 04.01.2019.
EXHIBIT R5(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 04.02.2019
GIVEN BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.
EXHIBIT R5(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT R5(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR.
EXHIBIT R5(H) A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR.
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
EXHIBIT R5(J) A TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PRESIDENT GEORGE JOSEPH.
EXHIBIT R5(K) A TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE WIFE OF THE SECRETARY DAISY THOMAS.
EXHIBIT R5(L) A TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE SON OF THE SECRETARY JEO TOM CHARIS.
EXHIBIT R5(M) A TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 65 ENQUIRY REPORT.
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3302/2019
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1562/2018 PASSED BY THE
JOINT DIRECTOR (AUDIT).
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A.D.(3)6010/2018
ISSUED REGISTRAR(AUDIT), DATED 01.11.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.R.P.(1)5044/18 DATED
12.10.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E(2)8353/2018
S.C.E.C.DATED 14.11.2018 WITH ELECTION NOTIFICATION.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C.R.P.(1)5044/189 DATED
18.12.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E(2) 8353/2018 S.C.E.C.
DATED 19-12-2018 ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 28-12-2018 IN
W.P.(C) NO.42547/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R5(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL REPORT.
EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE NO.311 OF THE
KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MANUEL.
EXHIBIT R5(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH THE MAHAZAR
REPORT.
EXHIBIT R5(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER SUSPENDING THE
SECRETARY DATED 04.01.2019.
EXHIBIT R5(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 04.02.2019
GIVEN BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.
EXHIBIT R5(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
and con.cases 2025:KER:24498
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT R5(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR.
EXHIBIT R5(H) A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR.
EXHIBIT R5(J) A TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PRESIDENT GEORGE JOSEPH.
EXHIBIT R5(K) A TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE WIFE OF THE SECRETARY DAISY THOMAS.
EXHIBIT R5(L) A TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE SON OF THE SECRETARY JEO TOM CHARIS.
EXHIBIT R5(M) A TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 65 ENQUIRY REPORT.
