LAWS(KER)-2021-7-93

M. RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. KANNAMKULAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.

Decided On July 05, 2021
M. RADHAKRISHNAN Appellant
V/S
Kannamkulam Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge has been laid to orders Exts.P2 and P3, ie., the award in ARC No.30/2011 dated 22.2.2013 of the Cooperative Arbitration Court, Kozhikode and common judgment in Appeal Nos.33/2013 and 44/2013 dated 26.11.2013.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk, thereafter, promoted as Senior Clerk and then to the post of Accountant. While working as Accountant in the Kunnamkulam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., he was assigned the charge of Secretary till 4.6.2004. On the said date he was served with an order of suspension from service and thereafter served with a notice alleging misappropriation of the funds ,which, was duly replied.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 did not accept the reply and decided to conduct an enquiry by the Sub Committee. The petitioner was summoned to appear for enquiry before the committee though no enquiry officer was appointed. During the period of alleged misappropriation, the tenure of managing committee of the Bank was over and an Administrator was appointed in its place. Various amount was spent as per the order of the Administrator without issuing any vouchers and the petitioner was made a scapegoat. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a showcause notice on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the sub committee dated 11.4.2005 which was duly replied on 19.4.2005 resulting into dismissal on 30.4.2005 which was assailed before the Arbitration Court. The Arbitration Court vide order Ext.P2 dated 22.2.2013 considering the material on record noticed that the Bank had not properly followed the provisions of Rule 198 of the Co-operative Societies Rules and no enquiry officer was appointed and a parallel proceeding was conducted by the President much less there were no co-ordination between the Disciplinary SubCommittee and the proceedings taken by the President , resultantly, set aside the orders of suspension and dismissal and allowed petitioner to retire voluntarily from the services of the Bank