GOPAKUMAR B Vs. PARANTHAL SERVICE CO OPERARTIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was a Junior Clerk under the first respondent Bank. He was placed under suspension by Ext. P3 order dated 3. 5. 2007 issued by the Secretary. Subsequently, Ext. P4 memo of charges was issued. An enquiry was conducted and ext. P6 is the report submitted, where the petitioner has been found guilty. Thereafter, by Ext. P12 order, petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from the service of the Bank and this order was issued by the Sub Committee of the Board of Directors.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, petitioner pursued his remedies by filing Ext. P6 before the Joint Registrar. According to him, the Secretary, who issued Ext. P3 order placing him under suspension was incompetent to pass such an order. Thereafter, he approached this court by filing WP (c ). WP (c ). No. 34418/08 2 no. 26708/08. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext. P9 judgment directing the Joint Registrar to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, questioning the validity of Ext. P3. The Joint Registrar accordingly considered the issue and issued Ext. P13. Although, some of the observations in the said order suggest that the Joint Registrar was prima facie satisfied with the case canvassed by the petitioner, still having regard to the fact that in the meantime, by Ext. P12, the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from service, the joint Registrar held further enquiry into the controversy unnecessary and on that basis Ext. P13 order was passed. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext. P12 and P13 and for a direction to reinstate him in service with back wages and other benefits from 3. 5. 2007.

(3.) I heard the counsel appearing for the first respondent also.