Koshy, J.

The appellant, a Senior Inspector in the Co-operation Department now working as Lecturer in Cooperative Training Centre at Palakkad, was suspended pending enquiry into acts of misconduct, alleged to have committed in the year 1999, about a decade back. The order of suspension is under challenge in these proceedings. He was on deputation to A.K.G. Memorial Co-operative Hospital, Kannur from 22.1997 to 6.1999. But on 6.1999 he came back to the parent department and was again sent on deputation to Co-operative Training Centre, Palakkad. According to the allegations, while he was working on deputation as the Chief Executive of A.K.G. Memorial Cooperative hospital, Kannur, he had unauthorized given a cheque in the name of a consultancy by name M/s. Surgi Tech India in connection with the service charge of the hospital equipment, in the year 1999.

2. The appellant denied the allegations. According to the appellant, he has not done any thing wrong. A registered lawyer notice was sent by the Society on 19.1999 to the appellant and M/s. Surgi Tech India pointing out the irregularities in the issuance of the cheque. The allegation in the notice was denied by the appellant. M/s. Surgi Tech India not only denied the allegation but also repaid the cheque amount and threatened to sue the Society. Then Ext.P2 lawyer notice was issued on behalf of the Hospital Society to the appellant and M/s. Surgi Tech India, Ext.P2 shows that he was informed that the amount was repaid by M/s. Surgi Tech India as early as on 11.1999. it also shows that no loss was caused to the Society. It further shows that the matter was closed. It reads as follows:

“The said allegations are denied by my client. Any way, No.2 of you have repaid the said sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) by way of Cheque No.66571 dated 11.1999 drawn on Federal Bank, Kannur Branch, to my client. As such, the board of Directors of my client have taken a lenient view in this matter against both of you and have decided to accept the said amount and not to proceed further in the matter. so, it is informed to you that my client has closed the said file as afore-mentioned.”

3. According to the appellant, years after the file was closed, due to political reasons, whit ulterior motives and malafide reasons, the matter was reopened. By Ext3, it was reported in a news paper that the Hon’ble Minister stated that action will be taken against the persons who gave political audition by making a false complaint against RUNCO. It is the case of the appellant that he had pointed out certain irregularities and defects in the working of the RUBCO during the audit conducted by him in the course of his duty and the affairs of the RUBCO is now being enquired into under Section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. It is only because he pointed out certain irregularities in the working of RUBCO that for victimizing him the closed matter was re-opened. This statement of the Hon’ble Minister was followed by Ext.P4 notice directing him to appear before the Enquiry Officer without framing a charge memo or without specifying any allegations. As can be seen from Ext.P4 he was informed that an enquiry is being conducted on the basis of a complaint given by the Chairman of the State Co-operative Union through the Hon’ble Minister on 211.2007. The complaint is the Chairman of RUBCO. During the audit conducted by the appellant in his official capacity as senior Inspector he had point out some irregularities in the working of RUBCO and malafides are writ large. It is also contended that eh complainant is in no way connected with the affairs and functions of the A.K.G. Memorial Hospital Society in any capacity. He does not have any right to examine and investigate the records and files f the Co-operative Society. The compliant is regarding the issuance of the Cheque while the appellant was the Chief Executive of A.K.G. Memorial Co-operative hospital in 1999. The complaint itself is