The competent authority to suspend an employee is the appointing authority. An employee cannot be kept under suspension for a period exceeding six months without a fresh order of extension from the appointing authority, and for a continuous period exceeding one year without the prior approval of the Registrar.

1. Heard Mr. P.C. Sasidharan for the appellant and Mr. R.V. Surendra Nath for the first respondent and learned Govt. Pleader for the second respondent.

2. Writ appeal is directed against the order in C.M.R No. 13981/1998 in O.P. No. 8144/1998. The original petition, has been filed by the Co-operative Bank challenging the order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kannur, dated April 2, 1998, which is marked as Ext. P2 in the original petition. By the said exhibit, the Joint Registrar, invoking the powers under Section 66 and Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act rescinded the order of the Disciplinary Subcommittee keeping the appellant under suspension. The Joint Registrar has issued Ext. P2 order on a representation filed by the appellant and as directed by this Court in O.P. No. 2309/1998. The Joint Registrar has found that the Sub-Committee constituted under Rule 198 of the Rules cannot suspend an employee pending enquiry into serious charges levelled against her, as the authority in terms of the Rules to keep an employee under suspension is the appointing authority. According to the appellant, the Disciplinary Sub-Committee is not the appointing authority and the appointing authority in so far as the appellant is concerned is the Managing Committee. The Joint Registrar passed an order rescinding the order of the Sub-Committee keeping the appellants under suspension. That order was challenged by the Secretary of the Society in the writ petition. Along with the writ petition a CMP was also filed seeking the stay of the impugned order. This Court, while admitting the original petition, was pleased to stay the order. The matter was brought up at the instance of the appellant after filing the counter affidavit for vacating the interim order. The learned single Judge extended the stay order until further orders overruling the contentions raised by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has preferred the above appeal.

3. Mr. Sasidharan, learned counsel for the appellant placed three submissions. According to him, the appointing authority, which is the Managing Committee, has not passed the order of suspension, but the said order was passed by the Sub-Committee and, therefore, the said order is illegal. Rule 198 of the Rules deals with disciplinary action. The said Rule says that any member of the establishment of a Co-operative Society may, for good and sufficient reasons, be punished by imposing any of the penalties mentioned in Rule 198 (1) of the Rules. Rule 198(6) of the Rules deals with suspension of an employee. The said Rule says that an authority competent to appoint an employee may suspend him pending enquiry into serious charges against such employee. No employee shall, however, be kept under suspension for a period exceeding six months at a time. In no case an employee shall be kept under suspension for a continuous period exceeding one year without the prior approval of the Registrar. An employee under suspension shall be entitled to subsistence allowance payable under the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant, who was suspended on June 13, 1997 cannot be kept under suspension beyond six months, i.e December 13, 1997 without a fresh order of extension of suspension from the Managing Committee and at any rate, an employee cannot be kept under suspension for a continuous period exceeding one year without the prior approval of the Registrar, which period in the instant case expired on June 12, 1998. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is well founded. As contended by him, the authority competent to appoint an employee, namely the Managing Committee, has not suspended him but only the Sub-Committee has passed this order of suspension. Secondly, as per Rule 198 (6) of the Rules an employee cannot be kept under suspension for a period exceeding one year