MATHAI Vs. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that is raised in this writ petition is whether the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies has the power to direct the Co-operative Society to initiate criminal action against a person. The short facts of the case are the following.

(2.) The petitioner is the President of the board of management of the Pothanicad Farmers Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 3510, a society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the 'Act' for short) and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (the 'Rules' for short). One Paily Elias who was working in the bank in the post of Peon was promoted to the post of Junior Clerk on 11-8-2012. The promotion was granted to him on the basis of a certificate produced by him showing that he had passed the Junior Diploma in Co-operation (JDC) examination that is being conducted by the State Co-operative Union. Later on, it turned out that the certificate produced by the said person was a fabricated one. Thereupon, as per Ext. P-1 the first respondent directed initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employee. Accordingly proceedings were initiated, a domestic enquiry was conducted and as per Ext. P-2 proceedings, the employee was dismissed from service. It appears that in the meantime the third respondent had submitted a complaint to the second respondent against the omission on the part of the petitioner to initiate criminal action against the delinquent employee. On the basis of the said complaint Ext. P-3 direction has been issued by the second respondent. By Ext. P-3, the petitioner has been directed to initiate criminal proceedings against Shri Paily Elias for having procured a promotion as Junior Clerk by producing a forged document

(3.) According to the counsel for the petitioner Adv. P.V. Baby the second respondent does not have the power to issue a direction as contained in Ext. P-3. The power of the second respondent according to the counsel is contained in Section 94 of the Act Sub-sections 8A and 8B are the provisions that are applicable to the present situation. Since the manner in which action for such offences are to be initiated and pursued have been set out in the said provisions, the present direction in Ext. P-3 is absolutely without any jurisdiction, it is contended. Reliance is also placed on Section 68A of the Act to contend that under the said provision, it is the Vigilance Officer who should conduct an enquiry on the orders of the Registrar. For the above reasons, it is contended that Ext. P-3 is liable to be set aside.