ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER IN CHARGE AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT Vs. JOLLY JOHN,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is a co-operative bank. They suspended the 1st respondent from service on certain allegations of misconduct. The suspension continued for an year. Disciplinary proceedings were not concluded even by that time. Since disciplinary proceedings were not concluded, the appellant sought sanction from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for continuing the 1st respondent under suspension beyond one year as provided under Rule 198(6) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The Registrar refused permission. Even thereafter, the 1st respondent was not reinstated in service. The 1st respondent filed W.P. (C) No. 20279/2013 before this Court seeking a direction to the bank to reinstate him in service. The learned Single Judge, after considering the matter, found that the continued suspension is in violation of Rule 198(6) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and directed the appellant to reinstate the 1st respondent in service. That judgment is under challenge in this writ appeal. The contention of the appellant is that the disciplinary proceedings could not be completed within one year not because of any fault on the part of the appellant but because of the delaying tactics of the 1st respondent. It is submitted that the 1st respondent filed an arbitration case challenging the disciplinary proceedings making the enquiry officer as a party and also protracted the disciplinary proceedings on one ground or another. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent is the General Manager of the Bank, which is a very pivotal post and if he is reinstated pending completion of the enquiry, he will be in a position to manipulate the evidence available against him. Therefore, the Registrar went wrong in not granting permission to continue the 1st respondent under suspension beyond one year and it is in the interest of public money that he should not be continued in service until the enquiry proceedings are over, is the contention raised.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We do not find any merit in any of the contentions of the appellant. At no point of time was there any order from any authority interdicting the disciplinary proceedings or the enquiry. The appellant had one long year to conclude the enquiry proceedings. If they could not do so, it is because of the inefficiently either of the appellant or the enquiry officer concerned. Even otherwise, within this one year, the appellant could have safeguarded all the evidence available against the 1st respondent and taken steps to protect the same from interference by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the argument addressed in respect thereof does not appeal to us. In any event, it is mandatory under Rule 198(6) that in no case, an employee shall be kept under suspension for a continuous period exceeding one year without the prior approval of the Registrar. We do not therefore find any infirmity in the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge.