Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Introduction:

1. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No.17905/2005 is a Co-operative Bank, whereas the 3rd respondent was its Manager, apart from being petitioner in W.P. (C) No.18843/2009. In fact, the 3rd respondent filed the second writ petition assailing the orders passed by the petitioner Bank pending the writ petition filed by itself : W.P. (C) No. 17905/2005.

2. Both the writ petitions essentially deal with the same issue; that is, the validity of disciplinary proceedings and the decision arrived at by the petitioner Bank in relation to the 3rd respondent. As such, this Court has deemed it appropriate to consider and dispose of both the writ petitions through a common judgment. For ease of reference and convenience, the facts as have been pleaded and the parties as arrayed in W.P. (C) No. 17905/2005 are taken as the basis for narrative purpose.

3. To begin with, before adverting to the facts of the matter, to put the issues in both the writ petitions in perspective, it is to be observed that in these two writ petitions the Court is called upon to decide the following issues:

(i) Whether the Appellate forum under Section 83 (1) (j) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act should invariably give, in express terms, the liberty to the employer to re-enquire into the alleged misconduct of its employee once it has found that the earlier enquiry held by the employer has been vitiated?

(ii) Whether, when the matter concerning the validity of the disciplinary proceedings is pending consideration, the employer is further permitted to continue the proceedings from the stage interdicted by the appellate authority disregarding the principle of sub judice and render findings afresh?

Facts in Brief:

4. The facts in brief are that when the 3rd respondent was working in the respondent Bank as the Manager, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. To be more specific, on 28.12.2000, the 3rd respondent was placed under suspension on an allegation of irregularities in the gold loan transactions in the branch under his management, resulting in a loss to the Bank to a tune of Rs.6,40,000/-.

5. Initially, based on the statutory inspection conducted by the Joint Registrar, the Government having noted serious mismanagement superseded the managing committee. That apart, in an enquiry conducted by the Secretary of the respondent Bank, it prima facie emerged that the 3rd respondent and another employee, a Clerk, were found to be responsible for the irregularities in the gold loan transactions.

6. In the light of the prima facie findings of the Secretary of the petitioner Bank, the management appointed an Enquiry Officer as part of the disciplinary proceedings. Based on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary committee issued Exhibit P3 notice to the 3rd respondent, who in turn submitted Exhibit P4 explanation. Having not been satisfied with the explanation submitted by the 3rd respondent, the disciplinary committee, based on the enquiry findings, imposed on the 3rd respondent a major punishment of reduction in rank.

7. Though the 3rd respondent filed Exhibit P5 statutory appeal before the managing committee invoking Rule 198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the Managing Committee, through an order dated 11.04.2012, dismissed it. After a gap of five months, the 3rd respondent, invoking Rule 176 of the Rules, filed a petition before the Joint Registrar to rescind the resolution on the ground that he had not been afforded sufficient opportunity in the disciplinary proceedings.

8. Acting on the petitioner's complaint, the Joint Registrar, through Exhibit P6, rescinded the resolution passed by the Managing Committee. Aggrieved, the petitioner Bank, invoking Section 83(1)(j) of the Act, filed a statutory appeal, which, in fact, was rejected by the Government through Exhibit P7. Under these circumstances, assailing Exhibit P7, the petitioner Bank filed W.P. (C) No. 17905/2005.

9. The petitioner