The Petitioner is the President of the Calicut City Service Co-operative Bank Ltd No. D 2777, a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The Society is classified as Special Grade-I. According to the petitioner, the bank is functioning in an excellent manner and is one of the best Co-operative Societies in the State. It has deposits worth more than 45 Crores and loans outstanding to the tune of Rs.39 Crores. It is stated to be the only bank in the Co-operative Sector having ISO certification.

2. According to the petitioner, ever since May 2006, after the present Government came to power, there has been gross interference in the day-today affairs of the Society for the reason that the present Managing Committee belongs to a rival political party. Therefore, for one flimsy reason or the other, enquiries were being instituted by the authorities into the affairs of the Society with the object of fishing out some reason to take action against the present management thereof.

3. Accordingly, the petitioner contends that during the 26 months preceding the filing of this writ petition, there has been five vigilance enquiries and one enquiry under Section 66 of the Act, which is stated to be continuing. According to the petitioner, all the enquiries are based on the same set of allegations regarding the use of the official vehicle of the bank, promotions claimed by the employees, etc. A vigilance enquiry conducted by the fourth respondent has found that there was nothing wrong with the affairs of the bank. The petitioner relies on Ext.P1 to point out that there is an enquiry in progress into a complaint made by one Sudheer. V before the second respondent. The petitioner co-operated with all the enquiries. However, the allegations against the petitioner could not be substantiated in any one of the enquiries that were conducted one after another into the affairs of the society.

4. While so, the petitioner was served with Ext.P5, a notice issued by the fifth respondent directing the Secretary of the Society to produce before it the documents listed therein. He has also issued Exe.P4 directing the driver of the Society to attend his office for being questioned. The petitioner understood from the above proceedings that some enquiry was being conducted by the fifth respondent, but, he was not in a position to understand the basis on which the same was initiated. Therefore, he filed this writ petition challenging the enquiry that was being conducted, without producing the order by which the enquiry was ordered. Later on, pursuant to an interim order dated 3.12.2008, the order was produced in court by the Government Pleader. Subsequently, the writ petition was amended producing the same as Ext.P6 and by incorporating necessary amendments in the writ petition challenging Ext.P6 also. Therefore, at present, the challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 proceedings of the first respondent.

5. As per Ext.P6, the first respondent has directed the Co-operative Vigilance Officer, DIG of Police, Co-operative Vigilance Office, Thiruvananthapuram, to conduct an impartial enquiry into a complaint submitted by Sri. A.V.Vaisakh. The complaint referred to in Ext.P6 is produced by the petitioner, marked Ext.P2. In Ext.P2, Sri Vysakh has complained that he was pressurized by the office bearers of the Society into submitting a letter requesting that he may be reverted to the post of a Peon from that of a Senior Clerk. On the basis of the said request, he complains that he was actually reverted. He has further made allegations against the action of the petitioner and other office bearers in forcing another employee by name, Vinod to submit his resignation. Consequent to such resignation, the said person is alleged to have committed suicide by consuming poison. Allegations are also made against misuse of the official vehicle of the Bank. Ext.P2 further contains allegations regarding misuse of pledged ar