Chitambaresh, J.

“Brevity is the soul of wit”

said William Shakespeare in his play Hamlet. Hence our endeavour to write a judgment with brevity.

2. The first respondent delinquent was the Assistant Secretary of the appellant bank run by a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short). The delinquent challenged Ext.P26 proceedings of the disciplinary sub-committee constituted under Rule 198 (2A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 ('the Rules' for short). Neither did the delinquent file an appeal to the managing committee under Rule 198(5) of the Rules nor did he raise a dispute before the Co-operative Arbitration Court under Section 69(2)(d) of the Act. The delinquent did not also invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [see: K.A.Annamma v. Secretary, Cochin Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd. [(2018) 2 SCC 729]. Ext.P26 proceedings of the sub-committee terminating the services of the delinquent were instead challenged in a writ petition mainly on the ground that principles of natural justice were grossly violated. The delinquent contended that the subcommittee had earlier issued Ext.P22 proceedings on same lines without even furnishing a copy of the report of the Disciplinary Enquiry Officer.

3. We find that a copy of the disciplinary enquiry report was later served on the delinquent and Ext.P24 show cause notice issued to him before the sub-committee issued Ext.P26 proceedings finally. It was so done pursuant to the interim order dated 26.09.2011 passed in the writ petition filed challenging the proposed termination of the services of the delinquent by the bank. We do not see any violation of the principles of natural justice or infraction of the statutory rules when the Act or the Rules do not anywhere insist on furnishing a copy of the disciplinary enquiry report. Can the writ petition be entertained against the Co-operative Society even if there is a violation of the principles of natural justice is the question posed by the appellant bank in this writ appeal.

4. We heard Mr. M. Ramesh Chander, Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant bank, Mr. N.D. Premachandran, Advocate on behalf of the delinquent and Mrs. K.R. Deepa, Senior Government Pleader.

5. A violation of the principles of natural justice may at best enable the delinquent to skip the statutory remedy and invoke the writ jurisdiction provided the impugned order was passed by a governmental authority. Ext.P26 proceedings were issued by the sub-committee of a Co-operative Society which is not a 'State' coming within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has been so held in P. Bhaskaran and others v. Additional Secretary and others [1987 (2) KLT 903(FB)] even though a discordant note was struck in John v. Liquidator [2006 (1) KLT 11(FB)]. A larger bench of this Court in Association of Milma Officers v. State of Kerala [2015 (1) KLT 849] has clarified that a writ petition would lie against a co-operative society only on limited grounds. There should either be a breach of the statutory provisions or breach of a public duty vested in it and we find that there is no pleading or proof in that regard in this case. The Co-operative Society is not even a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [see: Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2013 (4) KLT 232 (SC)].

6. The learned single Judge has held that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice since Ext.P22 proceedings of the sub-committee were issued without serving a copy of the disciplinary enquiry report. And that Ext.P26 proceedings though issued after serving a copy (and Ext.P24 show cause notice) were without expressly cancelling Ext.P22 proceedings. The fact that Ext.P26 proceedings were issued in supersession of Ext.P22 proceedings after curing the defects if any pursuant to the interim order in the writ petition is overlooked. The principles of natural justic