ROOPARANI S. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is stated to be working as a Branch Manager in the services of the 3 rd respondent - Service Co- operative Bank, impugns Exts.P5 proceedings, as per which, allegedly the leave earlier granted to her has been cancelled and she has been asked to report for duty urgently. She adds that subsequently, Ext.P10 proceeding was also issued against her by the President of the Society accusing her of not having complied with Ext.P5 and consequently placing her under suspension.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she had applied for leave of 360 days before the Secretary of the Society through Ext.P1 and that the said Authority had issued Ext.P2 order granting it. She says that she is suffering from a debilitating spinal ailment and therefore, that she is not be in a position to report for duty, as has been ordered by the President of the Society through Ext.P5. She therefore, prays that Exts.P5 and P10 orders be set aside.

(3.) Sri.Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent - Society, submits that the assertion of the petitioner that she was granted leave is completely untenable and impossible since any such leave could have been granted only by the Managing Committee of the Society. He says that the petitioner herself admits that she had not made any such application before the Committee and that even if Ext.P2 proceedings has been issued by the Secretary, the same is without competence and therefore, unsustainable in law. He therefore, contends that the President of the Society was well within his jurisdiction to have issued Exts.P5 and P10 proceedings and he prays that these orders be left undisturbed by this Court.