IMPORTANT POINTS
The employee was suspended from service with effect from 16.6.2017. When once the charge memo is set aside by this Court the position is that there is no memo of charges available for continuation with the disciplinary proceedings. Needless to say that, in such circumstances, even if the appellants are proposing to initiate disciplinary proceedings that is possible only after the framing and serving charge memo on the writ petitioner by the competent authority. Since there is no case for the appellants that the writ petitioner was kept under suspension for more than one year with prior approval of the Registrar

JUDGMENT :

Ravikumar, J.

This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.11.2019 in W.P.(C)No.22228 of 2019. Respondents 1 to 3 therein are the appellants. They are respectively the Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.No.F.1762, its Managing Committee and the Sub Committee constituted to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the first respondent herein. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) Call for the records leading to issue Ext.P1, P8 and P9 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential benefits.

(iii) Declare that petitioner is entitled to get reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.”

2. The facts that ultimately culminated in the impugned judgment are as follows :-

While the writ petitioner was working as Branch Manager under the first appellant viz., Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.No.F.1762 he was suspended from service on 16.6.2017. Subsequently, a disciplinary sub-committee was constituted. The disciplinary sub-committee thus constituted issued Ext.P1 memo of charges. The substantive charges levelled against the writ petitioner/first respondent herein are as follows:-

“(i) While working as Branch Manager of the bank at Adivaram branch sanctioned/disbursed the loans without following the criteria laid down for the same. The managing committee was given consent to all the Branch Managers to renew the loan in order to reduce the overdue and to issue fresh loan to worthwhile customers subject to the satisfaction of the committee.

(ii) Failed to mark attendance on certain days and

(iii) dereliction of duty.”

Ext.P1 memo of charges was framed and issued by the Chairman of the disciplinary sub-committee. On receipt of Ext.P1 charge memo the writ petitioner submitted Ext.P2 reply dated 22.10.2017. Upon finding the reply unsatisfactory an Enquiry Officer was appointed. After conducting enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted Ext.P5 enquiry report. Later, as per Ext.P6, the first respondent/the writ petitioner was called upon to submit objection, if any, to the enquiry report. Ext.P7 is the reply submitted by the writ petitioner. Later, penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on him as per Ext.P8. Aggrieved by Ext.P8 order passed by the disciplinary authority the writ petitioner preferred an appeal and it was rejected as per Ext.P9 by the appellate authority. Raising various grounds the writ petitioner challenged Ext.P1 charge memo and Exts.P8 and P9 orders in the writ petition. As per the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge held that the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the disciplinary sub-committee based on the charge memo issued by that committee is legally invalid and no action should have been taken based on such an invalid inquiry, even though the enquiry proceedings were ratified by the Managing Committee subsequently. It was also held that either the participation of the employee in the enquiry or failure to raise any objection in regard to the authority of disciplinary sub-committee to issue charge memo could not legalise the action done without authority which culminated in his dismissal from service. Based on the said conclusions and findings that the learned Single Judge set aside the impugned proceedings and left liberty to the Managing Committee to take action against the writ petitioner, in accordance with law. Taking into account the fact that the writ petitioner/first respondent was under suspension with effect from 16.6.2017 consequent to the declaration that the entire proceedings are illegal it was held that he is liable to be reinstated. Referring to Rule 198(6) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (KCS Rules) it was held that no employee could be suspended