Dismissed

Manjukumari L. v. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Kerala HC10 Nov 2022WP(C)/1702/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the writ petition for completion of proceedings. The petition sought direction to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to expeditiously decide a pending representation by the petitioner for reinstatement, alleging wrongful acceptance of her resignation. The Court directed the Registrar to decide the matter after hearing both parties within three months

What did the court decide?

Directed Joint Registrar to decide petitioner's representation for reinstatement after hearing both parties within three months.

Manjukumari L. Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 19TH KARTHIKA,

¶5

1944

¶6

WP(C) NO. 1702 OF 2020

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MANJUKUMARI L.
AGED 42 YEARS
ARCHANA BHAVAN,ANAKODE,VEERANAKAVU.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV D.SOMASUNDARAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL)

¶12

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

2 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL), KATTAKKADA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695553.

¶14

3 VEERANAKAVU WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.J.1580, VEERANAKAVU P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695572, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

4 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE VEERANAKAVU WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.J.1580, VEERANAKAVU.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695572, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶16

BY ADV SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

¶17

SRI.JOSHY THANNICKKAMATTAM-GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 10.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

..2..

¶20

W.P (C) No. 1702 of 2020

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner, who was working as an Accountant in the services of the 3^rd respondent – Veeranakavu Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd. (‘Society’ for short), concedes that, “under severe mental strain and pressure”, she submitted a letter to the Society to “relieve her” from its services on 29.03.2019. She says that, however, even before the same was acted upon, she preferred another letter dated 07.06.2019, withdrawing it, but that she was not allowed to rejoin or to commence her duties by its Managing Committee. She says that, therefore, she approached the Managing Committee with a request to re-admit her to duty, but when it was rejected, she had no other option but to prefer Ext.P2 before the jurisdictional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, invoking the provisions of Rule 176 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules (‘KCS Rules’ for short), seeking that the resolution of the Society, accepting her “resignation” with effect from 11.05.2019, be rescinded. The petitioner alleges

¶23

..3..

¶24

W.P (C) No. 1702 of 2020

¶25

that no action has been taken on Ext.P2 until now and thus prays that Joint Registrar be directed to do so, within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶26

Sri.D.Somasundaram – learned counsel for the petitioner, added to the afore, saying that, in fact, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kattakada, had issued Ext.P3 communication to the President of the Society on 25.09.2019, asking him to re-admit his client to duty, noticing that she had tendered alleged “resignation” on account of severe stress since she had been unfairly with certain misconduct. The learned counsel submitted that, not only has Ext.P3 not been adhered to by the Society, but that his client’s letter dated 23.09.2019 has been manipulated, by interpolating certain lines therein, as if to show that she had tendered his “resignation”, when she had not done so. He pointed out that, as is evident from Ext.R4(d) letter, placed on record by the Society, his client had only asked to be relieved from duties and that she did not tender her resignation at any point of time. The learned counsel thus prayed that Joint

¶27

W.P (C) No. 1702 of 2020

¶28

..4..

¶29

Registrar be directed to consider all these aspects, while deciding Ext.P2.

¶30

Sri.C.P.Sabari – learned counsel for the Society, submitted that, a detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record, wherein, it has been explained that when disciplinary action was proposed against the petitioner, she tendered her resignation by preferring Ext.R4(f) letter. He submitted that it is solely because the petitioner had tendered such, that she was not charge-sheeted; though the Secretary of the Society was suspended and proceeded against through a disciplinary enquiry because both of them were complicit in the misconduct in equal proportion. The learned counsel argued that, therefore, the intent of the petitioner in having approched this Court through this writ petition is only an afterthought and an attempt to get over the rigour of the disciplinary action, which she would have had to face, had she continued in service. He, thus, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶31

Sri.Joshy Thannickamattam – learned Government Pleader, submitted that if Ext.P2 is still pending before the Joint

¶32

..5..

¶33

W.P (C) No. 1702 of 2020

¶34

Registrar, there is no legal impediment for the said Authority considering it in terms of law, under the sweep of Rule 176 of the KCS Rules. He submitted that, however, said Authority may be left liberty to consider all relevant and germane aspects, while completing such exercise; and prayed that, sufficient period of time be also reserved for such purpose.

¶35

I have examined and evaluated the afore submissions, as also the documents on record.

¶36

Prima facie, Ext.R4(d) contains certain interpolations with respect to the subject mentioned therein. Whether this was done by the Society, as alleged by the petitioner; or by herself, when it was tendered, are issues that this Court cannot consider, since it is edificed on factual circumstances, which will have to be evaluated. However, it must be borne in mind that, except if the petitioner had made a “resignation”, the resolution of the Society accepting the same could not have led to the consequences of her being thrown out of service.

¶37

In other words, if, as asserted by

¶38

..6..

¶39

W.P (C) No. 1702 of 2020

¶40

Sri.D.Somasundaram, Ext.R4(d) can be only construed to be a letter requesting that petitioner be relieved from service on account of her mental tension, then it is also up to the Joint Registrar to decide whether it should be construed as a “resignation” or as a letter seeking only a “temporary respite”. Added to this, the recommedation of the Assistant Registrar, as available from Ext.P3, should also be adverted.

¶41

In the afore perspective, I order this writ petition, with a direction to the 1^st respondent – Joint Registrar to take up Ext.P2 request of the petitioner and to decide upon the same, after affording her, as also the Society, an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, adverting to Ext.P3 and to every other relevant documents, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶43

ACR

¶44

W.P (C) No. 1702 of 2020

¶45

..7..

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1702/2020

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED
11.5.2019 INFORMING THE PETITIONER
THAT HER RELIEVING LETTER IS ACCEPTED
BY THE BOARD AS HER RESIGNATION
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
25-9-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF DECISION DATED 25.09.2019
ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TO
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY TO
RECTIFY THE ILLEGAL ACTION.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
06.12.2019 OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.9.2019
INFORMED THE PETITIONER THAT AS PER
THE PROVISIONS OF K S
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
26.09.2019 TO THE HON'BLE MINITER FOR
CO-OPERATION.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R4 AA TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
11.4.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R4 BA TRUE COPY OF THE REMITTANCE MADE BY
THE PETITIONER AMOUNTING TO
RS.2,35,530/-
EXHIBIT R4 CA TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT AND ADVANCE
PAID
EXHIBIT R4 DA TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
29.3.2019
EXHIBIT R4 EA TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MANAGING COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT R4 FA TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
7.6.2019 OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R4 GA TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
25.9.2019 OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE

¶48

W.P (C) No. 1702 of 2020

¶49

..8..

¶50

EXHIBIT R4 HA TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
16.10.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSISTANT
REGISTRAR

Manjukumari L. v. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjukumari L. v. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

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

A. Shajahan Vs Kulasekharapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 995

Reshmi R Vs the Kulasekharapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.955

The Chairman Vs Bindu Mohan N.

K.Vijayambika Vs the Kerala Co-Operative Employees Pension Board

Vimitha Vijayan, Vs State of Kerala

Kr'S Sree Narayana College Vs Preetha Kumar T