The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of the Registrar's jurisdiction under Section 69 of the Act and Rule 176 of the Rules, emphasizing the need for employees to exhaust statutory remedies before invoking the Registrar's powers and clarifying the applicability of the principle nemo debet esse judex in propria causa in the context of the appellate authority's composition.

Per K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

Thiruvananthapuram Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. hereinafter called the 'Bank', has preferred O.P. No. 19898 of 2000, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated June 24, 2000 passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) Trivandrum staying all further proceedings including passing of a final order on the disciplinary action initiated by the Bank against the second respondent, Accountant of the Bank, till the disposal of ARC No. 159 of 2000. ARC No. 159 of 2000 was preferred by the second respondent under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act for cancelling the resolution passed by the Bank constituting Disciplinary Action Sub-Committee with President of the Bank as Convenor so as to initiate disciplinary proceedings against her. A declaration was also sought for that there is no proper appellate forum under Rule 198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules for hearing the appeal. A prayer was also made to rescind the resolution/decision of the Sub-Committee leading to the provisional decision to dismiss the second respondent from service.

The Joint Registrar entertained the Arbitration case, and passed the impugned order dated June 24, 2000. Before the learned single Judge, petitioner-Bank contended that the Joint Registrar has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute in connection with the disciplinary proceedings under Section 69 of the Act. Counsel also contended that the action of the Joint Registrar interdicting the Bank from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings is illegal. Second respondent contended that the Joint Registrar has got power to entertain a petition under Section 69(2)(c) read with Section 2(1) of the Act. Further it was stated that disciplinary action was taken by a Sub-Committee consisting of the President of the Bank under Rule 198(3) of the Rules. President being a member of the Board of Directors the second respondent stated that his right of appeal under Rule 198(4) has been effectively taken away. Counsel also relying on the decision of this Court in Pudupariyaram Service Co-operative Society v. Rugmini Amma, 1996 (1) KLT 100, submitted that the Joint Registrar has got power under Rule 176 of the rules also to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bank. Learned single Judge felt that the case in hand is a special case, where the original authority to impose punishment and the appellate authority to sit in judgment over the decision of the original authority are both headed by the President of the Bank. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Kunhammad v. Joint Registrar, 1998 (1) KLT 60, learned single Judge concluded that the principle of natural justice would be vitiated, if the appeal is heard by the Board of Directors, which is headed by the President of the Bank. Aggrieved by the above mentioned judgment, this appeal has been preferred by the Bank.When the matter came up for hearing, we heard counsel for the Bank, Sri George Poonthottam learned Government Pleader, Sri. C. K. Pavithran, for the first respondent and counsel appearing for the second respondent Sri S. Gopakumaran Nair.

Before we deal with the rival contentions, it is necessary to examine the facts. Second respondent herein was working as Accountant in the service of the Bank. She was placed under suspension by the Bank on January 27, 1998, along with another Officer on the charges of misappropriation of funds. She was served with memo of charges, along with statement of allegations, on February 4, 1999, to show cause why disciplinary action be not initiated against her under Rule 198 of the Rules. Charges levelled against her are as follows :

"1. That you, Smt. J. Shylaja, while working as Clerk and Accountant in the service of the Bank during the period from January 1, 1987 to January 31, 1998 had derived pecuniary benefit to the tune of Rs. 48, 166/20 (Forty eight thousand one hundred and sixty six and twenty