Disposed

Dharmadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar (General) in Charge of

Kerala HC10 Nov 2016WP(C)/1001/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court addressed a writ petition challenging an order by the Joint Registrar interfering with the punishment of a suspended bank employee. Upon admission that the managing committee had revoked the punishment, the Court set aside the Registrar's order as redundant and directed no action against the employee.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 order set aside; no action shall be taken against the 3rd respondent based on the managing committee's resolution.

Dharmadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Joint… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1001 of 2011 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. DHARMADAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. C.NO.1379, PALAYAD P.O., PIN-670 661, THALASSERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶8

(C.MOHANAN, AGED 54,, S/O.NANU, 'SNEHA', P.O.NETTUR, 670 105,, THALASSERY).

¶9

2. PRESIDENT,DHARMADAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., C.NO.1379, PALAYAD P.O., PIN-670 661, THALASSERY (PRASAD, AGED 50, S/O.RAMAN, PRAVAS, ANDALUR, P.O.PALAYAD 670 661, THALASSERY).

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN

¶11

SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) IN CHARGE OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 001.

¶14

2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THALASSERY, PIN-670 101.

¶15

3. K. SURENDRAN, SENIOR CLERK, DHARMADAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK DHARMADAM, THALASSERY, 670 106.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 1001 of 2011 (A)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶22

P1:	COPY OF THE	JUDGMENT IN	WPC 21556/09 DT 10/12/2009.
P2:	COPY OF THE	PUNISHMENT	ORDER DT 13/1/2010.
P3:	COPY OF THE 14/1/2010.	PROCEEDINGS	OF BARD OF DIRECTORS DT

¶23

P4:	COPY OF THE	SUMMONS IN ARC NO. 55/10 DT 14/6/2010.
P5:	COPY OF THE 18/9/2010.	ORDER BEARING NO.CRP(2)1101/10 DT
P6:	COPY OF THE	NOTICE OF THE R2 BEARING NO. 294/10/DT
	21/12/2010.
P7:	COPY OF THE	BOARD DECISION NO. 8 DT 28/12/2010.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :

¶25

EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT 28/12/2010. EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM

¶26

EXT.R3(c): COPY OF THE ORDER DT 10/5/2012 IN ARC 140/2011.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 1001 of 2011

¶32

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2016

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

1.The issue in this writ petition is arising out of Ext.P5 order of the Joint Registrar (General) in charge of Co-operative Societies, Kannur, the 1^st respondent. The 1^st petitioner is the society and the 2^nd petitioner is its president.

¶35

2.The 3^rd respondent, an employee of the society, was suspended alleging financial misappropriation. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted and the 3^rd respondent was found guilty. Accordingly, punishment was imposed by barring one increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the above, the 3^rd respondent approached the 1^st respondent; and the 1^st respondent, by Ext.P5, interfered with the punishment and also imposed a cost of 6,000/- to be recovered₹ from the 2^nd petitioner. It is challenging this order, the

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 1001 of 2011

¶37

..2..

¶38

petitioners have come up before this Court.

¶39

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners now admits that the managing committee of the respondent bank has taken a decision to revoke the punishment imposed on the 3^rd respondent. Ext.P7 is the resolution.

¶40

4.In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that that Ext.P5 has become redundant. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows;

¶41

Ext.P5 is set aside.

¶42

It is made clear that no action shall be taken against the 3^rd respondent in the light of Ext.P7.

¶43

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶44

bka/-

Dharmadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar (General) in Charge of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar (General) in Charge of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seablue Shipyard Limited Vs Ganesh

Jom C.Michael Vs Smt.v.R.Latha

Rangorath Gokul Prasad Vs Sri. C.Jayan

Thankamony K. Vs Babu

Mary, W/O.M.a. Ouseph Vs the Thalassery Primary Co. Op.Agrl.

Vakkom Farmers' Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Smt. Sindhu S.