1. 1. Petitioners, while working in the service of the second respondent, were placed under suspension on 13.2006. Show cause notices with memos of charges were issued to them on 7.2006. Being dissatisfied with their replies, an enquiry was ordered and enquiry officer appointed.

2. 2. The elected committees then in office was superseded on 11.2007. An administrator was put in charge. Later, administrative committee took charge on 8.2.2007. Disciplinary proceedings were dragged on. But the fact remains that neither the then elected committee nor the successor administrator or the administrative committee applied for prior approval of the Registrar in terms of Rule 198 (6) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter, the ‘Rules’ for short, to continue the petitioners under suspension for a period beyond six months.

.3. Matters stood so for quite a long time and the managing committee now in office assumed charge on 30.1.2008. The sub committee constituted by the managing committee now in office proceeded further on the basis of the enquiry report and issued show cause notices to the petitioners on its basis. The petitioners replied. The sub committee decided to dismiss the petitioners from service. Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) would show that on 29.2008, the petitioners were dismissed from service retrospectively from 13.2006, the date on which they were placed under suspension. This writ petition was filed on 9.2008, i.e., before the issuance of the orders of dismissal..

3. 4. In the writ petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that their continued suspension without prior sanction of the Registrar in terms of Rule 198(6) of the Rules is contrary to law and that on account of that illegality, they seek a further declaration that they are entitled to full wages and other perquisites attached to the posts that they would have respectively held during the period under which they were kept out of office. They also seek a direction to the statutory authorities to further proceed with certain matters in terms of Section 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter, the ‘Act’ for short, on the basis of the enquiry report stated to be available in terms of Section 65 of that Act.

4. 5. By the time the matter is taken up today for consideration, it is the admitted position that the employer society has, through its President, issued orders dismissing the petitioners from service. Those orders, Ext.R2(a) and R2(b), were issued on 29.2008, after the filing of this writ petition. The date of actual service of Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) on the petitioners is not a matter of record. Whatever that be, all that is needed to be noted at this point of time is that the dismissal orders were issued on 29.2008 and that the said action was after the institution of this writ petition. Also of relevance is the fact that those decisions, on their face, express that they would operate from 13.2006, the date on which the petitioners were placed under suspension.

.6. Thefacts and sequence of events noticed above would show that the allegations against the petitioners were leveled while an elected committee was in office. Show cause notices were issued to the petitioners. They replied to it. Enquiry officer was appointed since the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the explanations given by the petitioners. Obviously therefore, enquiry proceedings had commenced while the elected committee was in office. That committee was superseded on 11.2007. This means, from that date until 30.1.2008 the date on which the present committee assumed office following election, the administrator or the administrative committee, as the case may be, under the control and direction of the competent authority or Registrar, was duty bound to carry out the management of the society. Such management necessarily takes with it the power and duty to ensure that disciplinary proceedings are also pushed forward within the appropriate time