Remanded

The Pindimana Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No. E 25 v. Smt. Simi John

Kerala HC6 Mar 2024WP(C)/7906/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court revisited the validity of disciplinary proceedings and memo of charges initiated by a sub-committee in a cooperative society. Relying on the Full Bench judgment in Mattannur, the Court held the sub-committee had jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of and the matter is remitted to the Arbitration Court to try the issue afresh after due notice.

The Pindimana Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No. E… — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7906 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

THE PINDIMANA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LIMITED NO. E 25, CHELAD POST,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686692
REPRESENTED BY THE VICE PRESIDENT.

¶8

BY ADVS.
NISHA GEORGE
A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 SMT. SIMI JOHN AGED 51 YEARS W/O. JAI M. PAUL, MANIYATTU HOUSE, CHELADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686692

¶11

2THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/SECRETARY,

¶12

3 SMT. INDULEKHA PRESIDING OFFICER, THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023

¶13

4 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030

¶14

¶15

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
[GENERAL], KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686666

¶16

BY ADVS.
UNNIRAJA T.I.
S.G.SREEKANTH(K/755/2011)

¶17

W.P.(C) No.7906 of 2023

¶18

¶19

S.BADUSHA(K/673/2010)
SREEJITH S.(K/002264/2019)
JOEL ANTONY GEORGE(K/742/2020)
FAHEEM AHSAN.S(K/001986/2019)

¶20

GP SRI TONY AUGUSTINE.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C) No.7906 of 2023

¶23

¶24

BASANT BALAJI , J.

¶25

W.P.(C) No.7906 of 2023

¶26

Dated this the 6th day of March 2024

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The Pindimana Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (‘the bank’ for

¶29

short), represented by its Vice President, has filed this writ petition

¶30

seeking to quash Ext.P7 award in A.R.C. No.21 of 2020 as well as Ext.P8 order in I.A. No.4 of 2022 and I.A. No.1 of 2023 in A.R.C.

¶31

No.21 of 2020 passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court (‘the Arbitration Court’, for short), Thiruvananthapuram. The 1st respondent

¶32

was the Secretary of the bank. It is averred in the writ petition that while the bank was under the administration of the administrative committee, the 1st respondent misappropriated more than three crores of rupees by creating fake loan accounts. After conducting the

¶33

election and on assumption of the charge by the newly elected committee and after verification of the records, the misappropriation

¶34

was unearthed, and therefore an inspection was conducted under

¶35

W.P.(C) No.7906 of 2023

¶36

¶37

Section 66 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act (‘the KCS Act, for

¶38

short) and large scale misappropriation of the funds of the society have come to light which resulted in action under Section 68(1) of the KCS Act against the members of the Administrative Committee and the Secretary. Memo of charges was issued to the secretary and an enquiry officer was appointed, who had considered the issue and a report was filed. It is based on the report that a decision was taken to dismiss the Secretary from service. Against the dismissal, the 1st respondent filed an Arbitration case before the 2nd respondent as Ext.P1. The petitioner filed a written statement with preliminary objection regarding the maintainability as I. A No.4 of 2022 in A.R.C. No.21 of 2020. To the maintainability petition, the 1st respondent did not file any counter instead, another petition was filed as I.A. No.1 of 2023 to set aside the memo of charges and the enquiry report on the ground that the same was issued by a sub committee which was not

¶39

competent to issue the same.

¶40

Relying on the judgment of this Court in Kodenchery

¶41

Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Joshy Varghese

¶42

W.P.(C) No.7906 of 2023

¶43

¶44

[2020 (4) KLT 129 (DB)], the Arbitration Court, by Ext.P8 order held that the proceedings itself are not maintainable and by Ext.P7 order, it

¶45

was held that the memo of charges itself is seen issued by the authority who is not authorized to do so and the disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff are vitiated.

¶46

One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that though Ext.P1 was filed as a revision petition under Section 69(1) of the KCS Act, the same is not maintainable. The Arbitration Court has no power to convert a revision petition into A.R.C. and renumber it as A.R.C. No.21 of 2020 . It is also contended that the Arbitration Court heard the maintainability petition, and it was held that the petition is maintainable without looking into the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. Moreover, as per the decision reported in Mattannur

¶47

Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. V. Co-operative Arbitration Court

¶48

[2023 (5) KLT 312 (F.B.)], the judgment in Kodencherry (Supra) was partially overruled by a Full Bench of this Court, wherein it was held

¶49

W.P.(C) No.7906 of 2023

¶50

¶51

that the managing committee and the disciplinary subcommittee has

¶52

the jurisdictional competence to issue memo of charges. Therefore,

¶53

the present position is that the memo of charges issued by the subcommittee is valid, and therefore, Ext.P7 is to be quashed. Resultantly, Ext.P8 is also quashed.

¶54

In view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in

¶55

Mattannur (Supra), the proceeding initiated by the sub-committee is valid, and therefore, the matter is remitted to the Arbitration Court to

¶56

be tried afresh after giving due notice to the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent. The Arbitration Court is directed to reconsider the entire issue, including the question of maintainability of the petition filed before it.

¶57

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶58

Sd/- BASANT BALAJI , JUDGE

¶59

¶60

W.P.(C) No.7906 of 2023

¶61

¶62

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7906/2023

¶63

`PETITIONER EXHI` `Exhibit-P1`	`BITS` `COPY OF THE ARBITRATION CASE BEARING`
	`REVISION PETITION NO. 21 OF 2020 DATED` `28.05.2020 FILED BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE` `ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit-P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY` `THE BANK IN ARC 21 OF 2020 DATED 19.03.2022`
	`AND FILED ON 24.03.2022 BEFORE THE CO-` `OPERATIVE` `ARBITRATION` `COURT,` `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`
`Exhibit-P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE` `PRESIDENT OF THE PETITIONER BANK BEARING`
	`I.A.NO. 4 OF 2022 IN ARC 21 OF 2020 DATED` `18.07.2022 AND FILED ON 19.07.2022 BEFORE` `THE` `CO-OPERATIVE` `ARBITRATION` `COURT,` `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`
`Exhibit-P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BEARING I.A.NO. 1` `OF 2023 IN ARC 21 OF 2020 DATED 12.01.2023` `BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT,` `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`
`Exhibit-P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED` `IN I.A.NO. 1 OF 2023 IN ARC 21 OF 2020` `DATED 10.02.2023 AND FILED ON 21.02.2023` `BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT` `(SOUTHERN), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.`
`Exhibit-P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.` `ARGKGM/73/ 2023-UI(2) DATED 06.03.2023` `ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE BANK`
`Exhibit-P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN ARC NO. 21 OF` `2020 DATED 25.02.2023 PASSED BY THE CO-` `OPERATIVE` `ARBITRATION` `COURT,` `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`
`Exhibit-P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO. 4 OF 2022` `& I.A.NO. 1 OF 2023 IN ARC 21 OF 2020 DATED` `25.02.2023 PASSED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE` `ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`

The Pindimana Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No. E 25 v. Smt. Simi John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Pindimana Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No. E 25 v. Smt. Simi John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Chandran G Vs the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board

Abey K Joseph Vs 1. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General)

Jayarajan N K Vs State of Kerala

Jacob a J. Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

Sreekumar E P Vs State of Kerala

Kunhikrishnan T P Vs State of Kerala