Disposed

Bincymole .P.a v. Maneed Service Co-Operative Bank

Kerala HC2 Mar 2022WA/296/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ appeal challenging an interim order vacating a stay. The court held that factual disputes regarding the resolution powers of the Managing Committee preclude interference in this interlocutory appeal and directed the Single Judge for early disposal.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal disposed of; no interference with the impugned interim order was made; Single Judge directed to ensure early disposal of the writ petition.

Bincymole .P.a Vs Maneed Service Co-Operative Bank — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶7

WA NO. 296 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29403/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF

¶9

KERALA

¶10

APPELLANT:

¶11

BINCYMOLE .P.A AGED 44 YEARS SENIOR CLERK (UNDER ORDER OF SUSPENSION), MANEED SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, MANEED P.O, PIRAVOM 686 664, RESIDING AT KUNNATHUKALAPPURAYIL, MANEED P.O, PIRAVOM 686 664 BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 MANEED SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANEED P.O, PIRAVOM 686 664 2 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE MANEED SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, MANEED P.O, PIRAVOM 686 664 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 3 BIJU VARGHESE CHAIRMAN, DISCIPLINARY SUB COMMITTEE, MANEED SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, MANEED P.O, PIRAVOM 686 664

¶14

4 P. SHARANAGADHARAN, DOMESTIC ENQUIRY OFFICER, MANEED SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, MANEED P.O, PIRAVOM 686 664. BY ADV B.S.SWATHI KUMAR

¶15

SRI.B.S.SWATHIKUMAR

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WA NO. 296 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.

¶20

===================================

¶21

WA No.296 of 2022

¶22

(against the order dated 22.02.2022 in WP(C) No.29403/2021) ========================================= Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2022

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Alexander Thomas, J.

¶25

The impugned interim order dated 22.02.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge, vacating the earlier stay order granted in the instant WP(C) No.29403/2021 is the matter under challenge in this intra-court appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.

¶26

The appellant herein is the petitioner in the WP(C) and the respondents in the WA are the respondents in the WP(C).

¶27

Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in the WA/petitioner in the WP(C), Sri.B.S.Swathikumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in the WA/respondents in the WP(C). The prayers in the instant Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶28

“(1) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P1 suspension order, Ext.P2 memo of charges and Ext.P9.

¶29

(ii) To declare that entire disciplinary action of the respondents against the petitioner is in total violation of Rule

¶30

WA NO. 296 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

198 of the Co-operative Societies Rules and void ab initio.

¶33

(iii) Issue such other writ, order direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;”

¶34

The learned Single judge had initially granted interim order

¶35

on 20.12.2021 in the instant WP(C) taking note of the contention of the petitioner in the WP(C) that the impugned memo of charges at Ext.P2 dated 03.08.2021 has not been issued by the competent authority namely the Managing Committee of the respondent Co-operative Society, but by the President of the respondent Co-operative Society who is incompetent under the rules. In that regard, the specific contention of the petitioner is that it is well established that the appointing authority of an employee like the appellant is the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society concerned of the respondent Cooperative Society. Hence in the absance of any other explicit prescription, the sole authority to issue memo of charge is the Managing Committee of the respondent Co-operative Society and not any other body including the Disciplinary Sub Committee or the office bearers of the respondent Society like the President, Secretary etc. Later, the respondents in the WP(C) filed their counter affidavit in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge had now vacated the interim stay order dated 20.12.2021 as per the impugned interim order rendered on 22.02.2022.

¶36

WA NO. 296 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

In the instant case, the appellant was suspended from service as per Ext.P1 order dated 28.07.2021 issued by the President of the respondent Co-operative Society. Later, memo of charges has been issued on 03.08.2021 as per Ext.P2, which is signed by the President of the respondent Co-operative Society. The case of the appellant is that main reference in Ext.P2 memo of charges dated 03.08.2021 is to Ext.R1(C) resolution dated 28.07.2021 taken by the respondent Cooperative Society. It is pointed out that Ext.R1(c) is the resolution rendered by the respondent Co-operative Society on 28.07.2021, wherein, the only decision is to authorize the President of the Society to order the suspension of the appellant from service and to take further action. Further that, there is no decision in Ext.R1(c) resolution dated 28.07.2021, whatsoever on the question of memo of charges and that the Managing Committee of the respondent Co-operative Society has not taken any decision in Ext.R1(c) resolution regarding memo of charges to be issued to the petitioner. Hence the appellant contended that Ext.P2 memo of charges dated 03.08.2021 issued by the President of the Society is without jurisdiction inasmuch as that has not been issued based on the decision of the sole competent authority in that regard, namely the Managing Committee of the respondent Co-operative Society. In reply to the above, the plea taken up by the respondents in

¶39

WA NO. 296 OF 2022

¶40

¶41

the WP(C) in the counter affidavit is that another resolution was already rendered by the respondent Co-operative Society at Ext.R1(d) on 30.7.2021, wherein, a decision has been taken to issue the above memo of charges and that Ext.P2 is only the communication of the memo of charges. In that regard, the main contention urged by counsel for the appellant is that if as a matter of fact, Ext.R1(c) resolution dated 28.07.2021 was in existence at the time, Ext.P2 memo of charges was issued on 03.08.2021, then certainly, there would have been a reference in Ext.P2 memo of charges about the decision taken by the Managing Committee as per Ext.R1(c). Further that, the main reference in Ext.P2 memo of charges is to Ext.R1(c) resolution dated 28.07.2021, which does not speak about any decision taken for issuing memo of charges. Per contra, the submission of the counsel for the respondents is that merely because there is no explicit mention in Ext.P2 memo of charges issued on 03.08.2021 about Ext.R1(c) resolution taken on 28.07.2021 does not mean that the said resolution was not in existence or that Ext.P2 memo of charges has been issued without jurisdiction. Further, the counsel for the respondents would point out that the entire original records relating to the minutes and resolutions of the Managing Committee of the respondent Society can be produced before this Court in order to convince this Court that Ext.R1(c) resolution was rendered on

¶42

WA NO. 296 OF 2022

¶43

¶44

28.07.2021 which is before the issuance of Ext.P2 memo of charges dated 03.08.2021 etc. The Counsel for the appellant would also point out that Ext.P2 dated 03.08.2021 is the list of 19 documents mentioned therein given by the respondent Co-operative Society at the time of issuance of Ext.P2 memo of charges dated 03.08.2021. In that regard, it is urged by the appellant that if as a matter of fact, Ext.R1(d) resolution dated 30.07.2021 was actually in existence, then certainly mention would have been made in Ext.P2 about such a resolution taken on 30.07.2021 etc and omission to mention that would also clearly point out that Ext.R1(d) was not in existence at the time of existence of Ext.P2 memo of charges etc.

¶45

After hearing both sides, we note that the order challenged before us is only an interlocutory order of the learned Single Judge. Since both sides are disputing the above said factual aspects regarding Ext.R1(d) resolution etc and related aspects, there is no necessity for us to adjudicate such an aspect in this writ appeal. It is made clear that all contentions available to both sides could be raised by them before the learned Single Judge in appropriate manner at the time of disposal of the WP(C). Hence, in the light of these aspects, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned interim order in this case. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the learned Single

¶46

WA NO. 296 OF 2022

¶47

¶48

Judge to consider the early final disposal of the WP(C), within a reasonable time limit that may be appropriately fixed. No further orders are required.

¶49

With these observations and directions, the above writ appeal will stand disposed of.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶52

sd/-

¶53

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶54

Nsd

Bincymole .P.a v. Maneed Service Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bincymole .P.a v. Maneed Service Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Secretary, the Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Padmalekshmi

Prajitha Mambally Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission

The Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Prajitha Mambally

Vinod Kumar Vs Union of India

Ajayan K.V. Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Ajayan K.V.