SUNNY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three petitioners are the employees of the third respondent Bank. In the course of time, the petitioners have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings on account of serious irregularities in the grant of gold loans. As a part of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, the respondent Bank suspended the petitioners from service through Exhibits P3 to P5 orders dated 21.12.2015. Assailing the said orders of suspension, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition. Mr. M.M. Monaye, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has singularly contended that the impugned orders of suspension were passed by the General Manager, who is not competent in terms of R. 198(6) of the Kerala Co -operative Societies Rules (the 'Rules' for brevity). In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on State of Kerala v/s. Saseendran ( : 2009 (2) KLT 482 (F.B.).

(2.) Per contra, Sri. D. Sreekumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, has submitted that the General Manager has only communicated the Executive Committee's decision to suspend the petitioners. In elaboration, he has submitted that the Executive Committee, which includes the President of the respondent Bank, through Resolution No. 6 dated 21.12.2015 suspended the petitioners. He has further submitted that the said decision of the Executive Committee was ratified by the Managing Committee through Exhibit R3(b) proceedings.

(3.) Thus contends the learned counsel for the respondent Bank that the order of suspension is unassailable and needs no interference. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Prasanth Maroli v/s. Kannur Primary Co -operative Agrt. & Rural Development Bank Ltd. ( : 2008 (4) KLT 451) and Chandrikamma v/s. Assistant Registrar (General) Co -operative Societies (2000 (3) KLT 940).