MATHEW JOSEPH Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 22728 of 2021 dtd. 26/8/2022 .

(2.) The facts leading to the above appeals are as follows:- The writ petitioner, the Secretary of the 3rd respondent Society applied for leave without allowance from 12/8/2009 to 11- 08-2014. Though the writ petitioner had to rejoin duty by 12/8/2014, he could not join as he was unwell and bedridden and sought some more time to rejoin duty which the writ petitioner alleges was granted by the President of the Society. However, the Society issued Ext. P2 show cause notice and Ext. P4 charge-memo dated 12- 09-2014 and 18/10/2014 respectively. The 2nd respondent, set aside Ext. P4 and all other proceedings. By Ext. P8, the writ petitioner was suspended with effect from 13/4/2015 and Ext. P9, a second chargememo was issued to the writ petitioner, which after an enquiry, culminated in Ext. P12 order of dismissal. The appeal filed against the dismissal was rejected by the Managing Committee which in turn was challenged before the Co-operative Arbitration Court whereupon by Ext. P14 order, set aside the charge sheet and all disciplinary proceedings against him. Ext. P14 has become final and accepting the same the Society again issued Ext. P15 order of suspension dated 19- 08-2021 also with Ext. P16 charge- memo. The Writ Petitioner, on the ground that, the Society having accepted Ext. P14 order of the Arbitration Court, was bound to pay the salary and other benefits from the date of his initial suspension onwards filed the writ petition, challenging Ext. P15 and also for a direction to disburse all monetary benefits due to him from 3/11/2014 and for an expeditious culmination of the enquiry proceedings.

(3.) The third respondent Society filed a counter affidavit contending that the writ petitioner had an alternate efficacious remedy under Sec. 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act and that by Ext. P14, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, and therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge held that by Ext. P14, the entire disciplinary proceedings has been invalidated including the charge memo and, therefore, the Society must hear the writ petitioner and take a decision on the claim for arrears of salary for the period prior to Ext. P14 and that the benefits if found due after such exercise shall be released to the writ petitioner. It is also directed that the Society was to pay the petitioner, the eligible subsistence allowance for placing him under suspension under Ext. P15. The disciplinary proceedings initiated by Ext. P15 was ordered to be completed within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.