K. Surendra Mohan, J.

1. The petitioner is the Secretary of Chayam Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. No.1514. She has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5 proceedings. The impugned proceedings have culminated in Ext.P5, by which, a direction has been issued by the 3rd respondent for the suspension of the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent is a person who has been preferring various complaints against the Managing Committee of the Society, that is in office. An enquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" in short) was conducted, the report of which is produced as Ext.P6. On the basis of the said report, the 5th respondent is alleged to have made other complaints to the Lok Ayukta as well as to various other authorities. Action had been initiated against the Managing Committee under Section 32 of the Act. The said proceedings were the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.28832/2009 before this Court. That writ petition was allowed. The proceedings were quashed. The decision of the Single Bench has been confirmed in Writ Appeal also. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the complaints filed by the very same 5th respondent, a vigilance case has been registered as Vigilance Case No.7/13.

3. As per Ext.P2 communication, the Director, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau requested the Government to take necessary action to suspend the petitioner, who is the first accused therein. Accordingly, the Government addressed Ext.P4 communication to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent in turn directed the 3rd respondent, who has issued Ext.P4, to comply with the direction thereunder. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P5 proceedings to the President of the Society directing that the petitioner should be suspended.

4. The petitioner's case is that, the entire proceedings are vitiated by an absolute lack of power. Therefore, it is contended that the said proceedings are all liable to be set aside.

5. According to the learned counsel, Sri.George Poonthottam, who appears for the petitioner, Section 66B confers powers on the Registrar to direct suspension of an officer of the Society. The said power is to be exercised only in the circumstances that are specifically made mention of in the provision itself. In view of the above, it is contended that the power to direct suspension of an employee does not extend to any matter that has not been mentioned in the said provision. The power being a drastic one and the legislative intent being that the same should be exercised only sparingly, the provision has to be construed strictly, it is contended. According to the counsel for the petitioner, neither the Act nor the Rules confer any power on the authority, to direct suspension of an employee. The above being the position, it is contended that the impugned proceedings Exts.P2 to P5 are all without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader Sri.D. Somasundaram appearing for respondents 1 to 3 contends that, the authorities are clothed with sufficient powers to direct suspension of an employee. Section 66 of the Act confers powers on the Registrar to issue directions, which form part of the power of supervision and control, entrusted to the said authority. This is a case, in which, according to the counsel, in Ext.P6 also serious irregularities have been detected on the part of the petitioner. As per Ext.P2, the Director of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau has specifically requested that the petitioner be suspended. It was in the said circumstances that the impugned proceedings have been issued. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the contention that the authorities are powerless in such a situation is without any basis. In view of the above, it is contended that Exts.P2 to P5 proceedings are legal and are not liable to be interfered with by this Court.

7. He