This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a member of the 3rd respondent society seeking to quash Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent dated 14.6.2017rescinding Ext.P4 order passed by the Disciplinary Subcommittee constituted by the 3rd respondent bank and dismissing the 4th respondent from the services of the bank and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows;

2. Petitioner is an A class member of the 3rd respondent bank. Fourth respondent was dismissed from service by the sub committee after conducting a detailed enquiry, as per Ext.P4 order. The 4th respondent instead of filing an appeal against Ext.P4 order as is provided under rule 198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter called “the Rules”, filed a petition before the 1st respondent under rule 176 for rescinding Ext.P4 order. According to the petitioner, as per the settled position of law, 1st respondent has no power to entertain any petition seeking to invoke rule 176 to rescind the resolution, especially when power is conferred under section 69 (2) (d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies operative Societies Act enabling the 4th respondent top refer a suit, 1st respondent entertained the said petition and has passed Ext.P6 order rescinding Ext.P4 decision of the disciplinary sub committee dismissing the 4th respondent from the service of the 3rd respondent bank. It is the contention of the petitioner that, petitioner being a member of the 3rd respondent bank is interested in its activities and therefore, he is entitled as of right to challenge Ext.P6 order and therefore seeks to quash Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent.

3. Fourth respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. The paramount contention advanced by the 4th respondent is that, petitioner has no locus standi to challengeExt.P6 order. In fact the said order was challenged by the Vice President of the Managing Committee of the society in W.P.(C)No.20239/2017 and this court at the admission stage issued an order of interim stay on all further proceedings in the matter. In the said writ petition 4th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that, the society need not have any grievance regarding the orders issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The society at no point of time has raised any objection before the Joint Registrar regarding the maintainability of the petition filed by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent was constrained to move before the 1st respondent since there is total illegality in the matter of initiation of the disciplinary proceedings so also passing of the final order. It is also contended that, the disciplinary committee has no power, authority or jurisdiction to issue memo of charges and it is for the appointing authority to issue the memo of charges and seek explanation from the employee and if the explanation is found not satisfactory, then only the disciplinary committee can be constituted to conduct enquiry. However, contentions are also raised with respect to the power conferred on the sub committee or the executive committee of the society under rule 198.Therefore, according to the 4th respondent, 4th respondent was justified in approaching the 1st respondent invoking the power conferred under rules 176 of Rules, 1969. That apart it is submitted that, the writ petitioner is none else but the brother of Sri. Narayanan, who is the husband of Smt. Sreekala, who is the alleged Chairperson of the disciplinary sub committee. It is also contended that, taking note of the contentions raised in W.P.(C)No.20239/2017, the interim order granted was vacated as perExt.R4(a) order. Therefore, according to the 4th respondent, there is no bonafide in the reliefs sought for by the petitioner and seeks dismissal of the same.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned S