CHANDRIKAMMA Vs. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR GENERAL CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the Secretary of the second respondent Bank who has been suspended by the President of the Bank on the ground that he did not avail of long leave so as to accommodate a person of the committee's choice and to give him the charge of the Secretary. The main objection raised by the petitioner is that the President is incompetent to suspend the Secretary to the Bank as, the President is not the appointing authority.

(2.) According to the respondent, the petitioner is the glaring example of inefficiency and the administrative machinery of the society is under serious disorder due to the incompetent and inefficient dealings of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was directed to realise the outstanding loan amounts from the members of the bank who committed default in repayment of loan. A specific decision was taken by the management committee to take immediate steps. It was also decided that arbitration cases have to be instituted with respect to 47 members who have committed default and a direction was issued by the Secretary. But the petitioner has not complied with the said direction. Therefore, the committee decided to grant medical leave to the petitioner even when there was no application by the petitioner seeking grant of leave. She was also directed to hand over the charge to the junior clerk. That request was also declined. Therefore, the President by Ext. P7 suspended the petitioner from service. The managing committee held on 4.7.2000 ratified the action of the President of the said bank in issuing memo to the petitioner and the committee also authorised the President to take further action as the explanation tendered by the petitioner was not satisfactory. The committee held on 1.8.2000 ratified the action of the President by R2(1). Clause.45A provides that the President is the head of the Director Board. Clause.44 of the bye law provides for appointment of paid secretary by the Director Board as per the directions of the department.

(3.) A Division Bench of this Court, in which I was also a party, held that only an appointing authority can keep an employee under suspension (vide Chandramathi v. Vadakkumpad Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., 1998 (2) KLT SN 44 . R.198(6) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules provides that an authority competent to appoint an employee may suspend him pending enquiry into serious charges against such employee. Therefore, it is submitted that the suspension order issued by the President of the second respondent Bank is invalid as he has no jurisdiction to issue such an order. The President of the Bank is the chief executive of the elected Managing Committee. Ext. R2(h) Minutes of the Managing Committee dated 4.7.2000 ratified the action of the President in issuing memo to the petitioner. Ext. R2(i) is the Minutes of the Managing Committee dated 4.7.2000. This also goes to show that the President was authorised to take disciplinary action against the petitioner for the laches and misconduct on her part. Since the Managing Committee has ratified the action of the President, the President being the chief executive of the Committee is competent to issue a suspension order. It is not necessary that all members of the Committee should put their signature in the order of suspension. It is sufficient if the President puts his signature as the chief executive of the Committee. Since the action of the President is ratified by the Committee, the argument that the order of the President is not authorised by the committee has no merit at all. The order of suspension issued by the President has to be found to be an order issued by the Committee. Since the disciplinary action is pending, I direct the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.