This writ petition is filed by the petitioner bank seeking to quash Ext.P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent and Ext.P7 judgment of the 1st respondent Tribunal, which affirmed Ext.P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby petitioner bank was directed to pay the retiral benefits to the 3rd respondent along with cost and interest.

2. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows; Third respondent was the employee of the petitioner bank on and w.e.f. 24.7.1978 in the clerical cadre in a temporary vacancy on a consolidated pay of Rs.300/- per month. He was made permanent w.e.f. 24.7.1979 by granting a regular scale of pay. While working so, on 24.12.2002, one person viz., M.H. Ismath opened a savings account with the main branch of the bank. According to the petitioner bank, account was permitted to be opened without verifying the authenticity or identity documents produced by M.H. Ismath or without any prior introduction, for which one K.P. Lilly and P. Indira Devi were held liable. Later the bank found that, 3rd respondent was allegedly involved in some negligent transactions or colluded with the aforesaid two persons, passed mail transfers and an amount of Rs.4,48,287/- was successfully withdrawn.

3. Accordingly disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the 3rd respondent, K.P. Lilly and P. Indira Devi by constituting charges. Enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 22.11.2007 has found that, delinquent employees have not willfully committed any wrong, evident from Ext.P2 report. The said report of the Enquiry Officer was approved by the Board of Management. Thereafter, no proceedings were initiated. However, the Board of Directors, which met on 30.6.2011 took note of audit objections in the bank not recovering the loss caused to it due to the fraudulent mail transfers and resolved to recover 1/3rd of the loss sustained from the 3rd respondent and the balance from other two persons. Same was intimated to the 3rd respondent vide Ext.P3 memo dated 8.7.2011. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,49,429/- was deducted from the retirement benefits of the 3rd respondent, who retired from service already on 30.4.2011 as Executive Officer.

4. Being aggrieved thereby, 3rd respondent instituted ARC No.148/2011 before the 2nd respondent and secured Ext.P6 award. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, petitioner bank preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal affirmed the award of the Arbitrator as per Ext.P7 judgment. These are the backgrounds projected by the petitioner bank in order to secure the relief’s sought for in the writ petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

6. The sole question remains to be considered is whether any manner of interference is warranted to the concurrent findings rendered by the 2nd and 1st respondents respectively. The paramount contention advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner bank is based on rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner is that, petitioner bank is entitled to recover the amount consequent to the loss suffered due to the negligence of the 3rd respondent in accordance with clause (e) of rule 198(1). Clause (e), read thus:

"(e) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the society, by negligence’s or breach of orders or otherwise."

However, clause (e) is dependent on rule 198(1), which read thus:

"198(1): Any member of the establishment of a Co-operative Society may, for good and sufficient reasons, be punished by imposing any of the following penalties:

(a) Censure

(b) Fine (in the case of employees in the last grade.

(c) Withholding of increments with or without cumulative effect.

(d) Withholding of promotion.

(e) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the society, by