K. AJITH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P16 order passed by the first respondent and also seeking a direction to the third respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service.

(2.) Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: - Petitioner while working as Branch Manager of the third respondent Bank was suspended alleging misappropriation. Thereafter, he was given memo of charge and statement of allegations. Petitioner denied all the allegations levelled against him. However, it is contended that without appointing an enquiry officer or without serving a copy of the enquiry report. the matter was heard by the Secretary of the Bank on 4.4.1997. On 5.4.1997 the Sub Committee passed Ext.P2 order removing the petitioner from service without hearing him.

(3.) Being aggrieved, petitioner has preferred appeal before the Board of Directors. Board of Directors as per Ext.P3 rejected the appeal. It is the contention of the petitioner that members who participated in the sub committee also participated in the Board of Directors for deciding the appeal. Challenging Ext.P1 memo and Ext.P3 order petitioner filed petition under Rule 176 of the Co -operative Societies Rules (for short ' the Rules'). But, the same was dismissed by the second respondent. Thereupon, petitioner filed a revision before the first respondent. First respondent passed an order setting aside the order passed by the second respondent under Rule 176 of the Rules and also initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by the third respondent Bank. While passing the order Government failed to direct the Bank to reinstate the petitioner with all the consequential benefits. Therefore, petitioner challenged the order of the Government in W.P.(C) No.16252/2005 seeking reinstatement. Third respondent filed W.P.(C)8043/2005 challenging the order of the first respondent contending that, first respondent has exceeded his power under Section 87 of the Co - operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act'). This Court vide Ext.P11 judgment relegated the parties to the first respondent holding that the petitioner was liable to substantiate the reason as to the delay caused in invoking the provisions of Rule 176 of the Rules.