The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory exclusion for the Joint Registrar to entertain petitions seeking reinstatement with back wages under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, as provided in Section 69 of the Act.

1. Has the joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies the jurisdiction to direct reinstatement with back wages of an employee dismissed from service by the Co-operative Society? This is the interesting question that arises for consideration in this writ petition.

2. An educational co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act; 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) and its President are the petitioners. Respondents 2 to 4 were the teachers employed in the Co-operative Arts and Science College run by the society. Respondents 2 to 4 were placed under suspension by Ext.P1 proceedings of the Administrator of the society for alleged misdemeanor on duty. The allegation was that respondents 2 to 4 trespassed into the office of the society and obstructed the then Administrator in office and the Returning Officer. They also allegedly damaged the computers and the telephone kept in the office embarrassment to the students who had come to the college for admission. The Managing Committee of the society later by resolution dated 27.9.2009 constituted a sub-committee to go into the charges. The disciplinary sub-committee was so constituted under Rule 198 (2A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short).

3. The disciplinary sub-committee issued Ext.P2 series notices calling upon respondents 2 to 4 to submit explanation to the memo of charges. The disciplinary subcommittee dissatisfied with the explanation decided to impose the punishment of removal from service by Ext.P3 proceedings. Respondents 2 to 4 thereupon preferred Ext.P7 series petitions before the first respondent Joint Registrar seeking to invoke Rule 176 of the Rules. The prayers in Ext.P7 series petitions are the following:-

i) To rescind the resolution of the society constituting the disciplinary sub-committee,

ii) To set aside the decision of the sub-committee imposing the punishment of removal from service; and

iii) To direct reinstatement in service with back wages.

The Joint Registrar issued Exts.P4 and P6 notices of hearing to the society which have been impugned in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The Joint Registrar has alone filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending as follows:-

“A perusal of the enquiry proceedings would reveal that he has not appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and his finding are perverse, as not supported by any valid reasons…….. It is seen that the sub-committee proceeded to impose the punishment of dismissal without appreciating any of the objections raised by them as to the validity of the proceedings, evidence adduced in the case and the findings of the enquiry officer. Both the enquiry officer and the sub-committee adopted a tendentious approach to the whole issue.”

Respondents 2 to 4 contended that the writ petition is pre-mature and that the entire issues are at large in the proceedings before the Joint Registrar under Rule 176 of the Rules. Respondents 2 to 4 also contended that a writ petition merely challenging the notices of hearing cannot by countenanced in law.

5. I have heard Mr.P.C.Sasidharan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.George Poonthottam, Advocate on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 as well as the Government Pleader on behalf of the first respondent Joint Registrar.

6. The contentions raised by the petitioners are three fold and they are the following:

i) There is a clear ouster of jurisdiction for the Joint Registrar to entertain Ext.P7 series petitions filed invoking Rule 176 of the Rules in view of the statutory exclusion under Section 69 of the Act.

ii) Ext.P3 series decision of the disciplinary sub-committee is not at any rate a resolution of the society liable to be rescinded calling in aid Rule 176 of the Rules.

iii) The remedy, if any, of respondents 2 to 4 is either to prefer an appeal to the Managing Committee of the society under Rule 198(4) of