P.N.DAMODARAN PILLAI Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The President of the 4th respondent Bank has filed this writ petition praying to quash Exts.P15 and P16. The present Committee was elected in 2018 and assumed charge on 23/5/2018. The 2nd respondent conducted an inspection of the accounts of the 4th respondent on 25/2/2021 and 26/2/2021. The inspection included accounts relating to 2015 from the system data. According to the petitioner, during the inspection, it was informed that the earlier Secretary of the Bank Sri C.P.Najeeb had committed financial misappropriation during the said period. On 27/2/2021 the Committee of the 4th respondent decided to appoint a Computer Expert to verify the above aspect. On 1/3/2021, an Arbitration Case was initiated against Sri C.P.Najeeb, who had already retired from service on superannuation on 31/3/2019. The immovable properties of Najeeb were attached to secure the amounts that are alleged to have been misappropriated and to protect the interest of the Bank. The order issued by the Joint Registrar has been produced as Ext.P1.

(2.) The 1st respondent thereafter issued Ext.P2 order directing an enquiry under Sec. 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This was followed by a notice Ext.P3 directing the petitioner to appear for the purpose of the enquiry. The case of the petitioner is that such an enquiry regarding the alleged misappropriation which had happened in 2015 cannot be initiated against the present Committee which entered Office only on 23/5/2018. It is further submitted that Exts.P5 to P9 which are reports of the statutory audit conducted by the 3rd respondent for the years 2015-16 to 2019-20 do not indicate any such misappropriation. It is hence contended that when the auditors could not find out about the misappropriation during the statutory audit, the petitioner could not be expected to unearth such a misappropriation. According to the petitioner, instead of ordering an enquiry under Sec. 65 of the Act, the 1st respondent ought to have invoked Sec. 66 of the Act and ordered an inspection and called for a report.

(3.) The Managing Committee and the 4th respondent filed W.P.(C)No.6706/2021. Pending the writ petition, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P10 order on 24/3/2021 suspending the Managing Committee for three months. Since the Committee was suspended and a Part Time Administrator took charge, W.P. (C)No.6706/2021 was dismissed by Ext.P11 judgment. The petitioner challenged Ext.P10 order in W.P.(C)No.8081/2021. Pending the writ petition, the period of suspension was extended. By Ext.P12 judgment dtd. 15/11/2021, W.P.(C)No.8081/2021 was allowed. The respondents challenged Ext.P12 in W.A.No.1542/2021. The appeal was dismissed by Ext.P13 judgment. Thereafter, by Ext.P14 order dtd. 4/12/2021, the Managing Committee was reinstated in Office.