Point of law: In cases involving embezzlement of money, it is advisable that the concern employee is kept out so that they may not be able to perpetrate any further mischief.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a declaration that Exhibit P3 order of suspension issued by the Managing Committee of the 1st respondent Bank is illegal and arbitrary and violative of the specific directions issued by this Court in Exhibit P1 judgment. The petitioner has also sought for reinstating him in service and to permit him to continue in service as Senior Clerk by treating that he is in service from the date of completion of the earlier enquiry.

2. Brief facts are as under :

The records reveal that the petitioner was employed as a Senior Clerk in the 1st respondent Bank. On 28.03.2019, he was placed under suspension by the Secretary of the Bank, pursuant to a decision of the Managing Committee. The specific allegation is that the petitioner while working as Cashier-in-Charge and one Mrs. Sini. V.D, while working as Manager-in-charge of the Kattikunnu Branch of the 1st respondent Society, were joint custodians of cash and records maintained in the Bank. On 27.03.2019, an inspection was carried out by the Unit Inspector, Vadayar and a shortage amounting to Rs. 17,78,498/- was detected. It is also found that the books and records of the branch were tampered with. A complaint was lodged before the Vaikkom Police Station and the investigation was completed and a final report was laid. The case is now pending as C.C. No.710/2019 and the petitioner is on bail. After suspending the petitioner, a show-cause notice and memo of charges were issued by the Chairman of the disciplinary committee and thereafter an enquiry was conducted. The charges were found to be proved and he was found guilty. A show-cause notice was again issued and finally by order dated 04.06.2020, the petitioner was terminated from service of the bank. The petitioner challenged the order of termination by preferring a statutory appeal. He also approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No. 19884/2020, challenging the order of termination, raising various legal contentions. During the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No. 6133/2021 challenging the said order. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by common judgment dated 22.06.2021, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Kodenchery Service Co-operative Bank v. Joshy Varghese (2020 (4) KLT 129), took the view that the jurisdiction for issuing memo of charge is vested only with the Managing Committee of the Society and the same cannot be delegated to a disciplinary subcommittee. It was held that since the memo of charges and the show cause notice was issued against the petitioner by the disciplinary committee, which resulted in the termination order, the same was without jurisdiction. After coming to such a finding, this Court quashed the entire proceedings as invalid and the termination order was also set aside. The directions were issued to the bank to pay the entire arrears of the subsistence allowance and to reinstate the petitioner herein. However, in Para No.12 of the Judgment, this Court observed that the quashing of the proceedings would not preclude the bank from issuing a fresh memo of charges in accordance with law and to proceed against the writ petitioner if so advised. The petitioner contends that immediately on receipt of the judgment of this Court, the same was produced before the 1st respondent. The petitioner was directed to rejoin duty and he rejoined duty as Senior Clerk on 06.07.2021 at 10.00 am. He contends that on 07.07.2021 when the petitioner reached the Head Office, he was served with Exhibit P3 order suspending him from service w.e.f. 10.00 a.m on 07.07.2021. The aforesaid order is under challenge.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2. After narrating the allegations levelled against the petitioner, it is stated that it was in terms of the directions issued by this Court