CHITHAMBARAN Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO OP SOC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was working as a peon in the second respondent Co-operative Bank. In 1985 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and an order was passed by the Board of Directors to remove the petitioner from service, and the President of the Co-op. Bank was directed to implement the order of removal of the petitioner from service. Petitioner came to know of these developments and he submitted a representation evidently under Rule 176 of the Co-operative Societies Rules praying that resolution passed against the petitioner for removing him from service was violative of Rule 198 and therefore, the Registrar should rescind the resolution. Petitioner received a reply Ext. P8, from the Registrar informing him that Registrar has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter since it was a dispute between an employee and employer. Petitioner challenges Ext. P8.

(2.) Respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter statement contending that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to consider the question of disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the original petition is not maintainable. They have also stated that the removal of the petitioner was justified in the circumstands of the case,

(3.) We heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, The counsel for the petitioner contended that under Rule 198, the authority competent to impose serious penalties against persons like the petitioner is the President and in the instant case, the decision to remove the petitioner from service was taken by the Board of Directors, and it is pointed out that in fact the Board of Directors is the appellate forum wherein the order imposing serious penalties could be challenged. Petitioner's counsel submits that as the initial order is passed by the appellate authority, petitioner is denied of his valuable right of appeal. Petitioner has also a case that as per Rule 198 (1) (h) dismissal from service alone could be imposed against an employee and removal from service is not one of the punishments given in Rule 198 (1), of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules The counsel contended that there is clear distinction between removal from service and dismissa from service. We do not propose to express any thing on this aspect.