M.RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. A.C.JAILAVUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents 3 to 5 in W.P.(C) No.25006/2008 have filed this writ appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. The appellants initiated disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent herein on certain allegations of misconduct. The punishment of dismissal was imposed on the 1st respondent in those proceedings. The 1st respondent filed an application under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co- Operative Societies Rules, before the 3rd respondent herein. The 3rd respondent entertained the application but dismissed the same on merits by Ext.P4 order. The 1st respondent filed an appeal against that order under Section 83(2) of the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act before the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent also entertained the same and dismissed the same on merits by Ext.P6 order. The 1st respondent filed the writ petition challenging Exts.P4 and P6 orders, judgment in which is under challenge in this writ appeal. The learned Single Judge considered the validity of the enquiry conducted and found that the enquiry is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice insofar as the Enquiry Officer was biased. The learned Single Judge found that the Enquiry Officer himself appeared for the management in proceedings challenging the enquiry proceedings which would manifestly show bias on the part of the Enquiry Officer. On that ground, the learned Single Judge quashed Exts.P4 and P6 orders and directed the appellants 1 and 3 herein to conduct a dinovo enquiry in respect of the charges against the 1st respondent through any person other than the Enquiry Officer who have conducted the impugned enquiry and to conclude the proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. The appellants herein filed a review petition against that judgment on the ground that the 1st respondent has embarked on 3 parallel proceedings in respect of the same cause of action in the form of a petition under Rule 176, an I.D. under the Industrial Disputes Act and an arbitration case under Section 69(2) of the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act and therefore, this Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition at all. But the learned Single Judge dismissed R.P.No.782/2009 filed by the appellant herein. It is under the above circumstances, the appellants have filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellants, apart from filing an application under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co- Operative Societies Rules, the 1st respondent has raised an industrial dispute which was decided against him and he had also filed an ARC before the Arbitration Court under Section 69(2) of the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act. The counsel for the appellant submits that the 1st respondent should not be permitted to prosecute parallel proceedings in respect of the same cause of action.

(3.) IT is thereafter the Government passed Ext.P6 order dismissing the 1st respondent's appeal. According to the 1st respondent, in such circumstances the 1st respondent had no other option but to challenge Exts.P4 and P6 orders, since if those orders stand that would prejudicially affect the case of the 1st respondent in the arbitration case. As such there is no merit in the contention that the 1st respondent embarked on three parallel proceedings on the same cause of action is the contention raised. Therefore, according to the 1st respondent, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.