IMPORTANT POINTS
There is no express exclusion of the application of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Arbitrator is eminently empowered, under Rule 7 of Order XXXIX, to exercise his powers for the appointment of an expert as he deems appropriate to render complete justice, that it is sine qua non of any forum, be it quasi-judicial or judicial.

JUDGMENT :

Haripal, J.

This is an appeal preferred under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1866 of 2018 dated 24/01/2020. The said writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent Pattanakkad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.1144 and others seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P10 order of the Co-operative Arbitration Court and to quash the same; to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the 1st respondent, namely the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, to take a decision in ARC No.606 of 2015 in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules.

2. The appellants are respondents 2 and 4 in the writ petition. They were the Secretary and Attender respectively of the said Co-operative Bank. An inspection was conducted in the Bank at the instance of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, by which large scale irregularities were unearthed, including misappropriation of funds. Following it, Ext.P1 interim report was drawn up. In the interim report, Secretary, the 1st appellant, Attender Sajeevan, the 2nd appellant and Senior Clerk B.Aravind were found responsible for misappropriation of funds and other large scale irregularities committed in the Bank. The interim report recommended for their suspension from service. Basing on the report, an F.I.R. was lodged in the Pattanakkad police station registering Crime No.1129/2015 alleging offences punishable under Sections 177, 403, 405, 408, 409, 415, 420, 477, 477A r/w Section 34 IPC. Later, ARC No.606 of 2015 was filed before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Sections 69 and 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act against the said three persons seeking a declaration and for recovery of money. The amounts misappropriated and sought to be recovered comes to Rs.14,53,01,708/-with future interest and costs. The defendants contested the suit raising all possible contentions including that of non-joinder of necessary parties. The Arbitrator, Additional Registrar, by Ext.P10 Award, disposed of the Arbitration Case on 17/10/2017. According to the Arbitrator, on verifying the interim report dated 16/11/2015 and the final report dated 12/05/2016, nine employees were responsible for the misappropriation of funds. However, only three persons were arrayed as the defendants, which was improper. Therefore, enabling the plaintiff to institute a fresh Arbitration Case arraying other defendants as well, the ARC was disposed of.

3. In the writ petition, the Bank challenged the correctness of the said decision. The learned single Judge found that Ext.P10 Award is illegal and set aside the same and remitted the matter back to the 1st respondent for continuing with the adjudication of the ARC with the defendants already impleaded in the ARC. The appellants challenge that finding.

4. We have heard Adv. Sri. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned senior counsel for the appellants and Sri. Arjun Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in the appeal.

5. The learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that even though nine employees of the Bank were held responsible for the alleged misappropriation, the Bank wanted to proceed against the appellants and another alone, and it was purely based on Ext.P1 interim report. But the final report clearly revealed the involvement of other employees as well; however, the stand of the plaintiff in the ARC, not to implead the other delinquent employees as well, was not justifiable. It was under this circumstance that the Arbitrator had decided to close the proceeding, enabling the Bank to institute a fresh proceeding arraying all the persons who were found at fault. The learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in National Spices v. Andhra Bank [1987 (2) KLT 132], P.V. George v. Bank of Madurai Ltd. [1985 KLJ 999].