Important points:
The committee of a society could drop the disciplinary proceedings-The stage of constitution of a 'disciplinary subcommittee' to enquire into the charges need be constituted by the committee of a society invoking the power under sub-rule (2A) of Rule 198 only if the explanation of the delinquent employee is found unnecessary and it is found that disciplinary action is called for

JUDGMENT :

Ravikumar, J.

The appellant who is the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. (C) No.13381 of 2020 calls in question the judgment passed thereon. The writ petition was filed seeking the following prayers:-

“i. Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition or such other order or direction interdicting the 3rd respondent administrative committee from proceeding with the enquiry proceedings initiated under Exhibit P6 charge memo.

(ii). Declare that Rule 198 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 as amended by SRO No: 829/10 with effect from 18/08/2010 does not empower the administrator/ administrative committee appointed under Section 32/33 of the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969 to enquire into by themselves or engage the services of an external agency to enquire into the charges against an employee of the cooperative society.

(iii). Issue a writ declaring that the Administrator or the Administrative Committee has no power to conduct the enquiry without following the statutory mandate under Rule 198(2A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and actions taken otherwise are illegal and without authority.”

2. We ween that a succinct narration of facts is inevitable for the disposal of the appeal. The appellant is the Secretary of Thumboor Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.359, the 2nd respondent which is a primary co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for brevity 'the KCS Act'). Earlier, the Managing Committee of the Bank was superseded as per order of the first respondent issued in invocation of the power under Section 32 of the KCS Act. Initially, the order of supersession was stayed as per Ext.P2 order dated 14.6.2019 in W.A.No.1434/2019. But then, on expiry of the term of the committee on 21.7.2019 the administration of the Bank was entrusted with the third respondent Administrative Committee. The appellant was placed under suspension by the said committee as per Ext.P3 dated 27.8.2019 pending enquiry. Immediately thereafter, the appellant challenged the order of suspension by filing W.P.(C)No.23900 of 2019. As per Ext.P4 judgment the said writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the appellant to invoke the alternative remedy available under the KCS Act. Thereafter, the initial period of suspension for six months was extended by the 3rd respondent Committee for a further period of six months as per Ext.P5 order dated 22.2.2020. Still later, Ext.P6 charge memo dated 2.3.2020 and statement of allegations were served on the appellant. On receipt of Ext.P6 the appellant submitted Ext.P7 reply. Obviously, finding it as unsatisfactory the 4th respondent was appointed as enquiry officer to inquire into the charges levelled against the appellant. It is assailing the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and its continuance, by raising various grounds, that the above mentioned writ petition viz., W.P. (C)No.13381 of 2020 was filed.

3. In the writ petition, the appellant/the petitioner assailed the authority of the 3rd respondent Administrative Committee to initiate and continue with the enquiry proceedings, contending that the Administrative Committee appointed under Section 32/33 of the KCS Act lacks authority to enquire into, by themselves or by engaging the service of an external agency, the charges levelled against an employee of the society in terms of the provisions under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (for short 'KCS Rules') without following the statutory mandate under Rule 198(2A) of KCS Rules. In short, referring to sub-rules (2A) and (2B) of Rule 198 the appellant/the petitioner contended that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings is ab initio void and hence the disciplinary proceedings could not be permitted to be continued. The appellant/the petitioner contended further that after the insertion of sub-rules (2A) and (2B) to Rule 198, with effect from 18.8.2010 it is mandatory for the committee of a society to constitute a discip