Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
Krishna Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Brahmamangalam Gramaswaraj Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 29433 of 2022
Decided On : 28-09-2022
Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules - Rule 198(6) - Granting permission to extend period of suspension - Petitioner, while working as a Cashier in services of 1st respondent - Society, was placed under suspension and period of same was extended by it, as is permissible under Rule 198(6) of Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules - However, admittedly, Society did not receive any sanction from competent Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, granting permission to extend the period of suspension and they, consequently, did not issue any further orders to petitioner - Whether Ext.P2 order could be found to be valid, to the extent to which it allowed retrospective continuation of suspension of petitioner - If Society deems it necessary to place petitioner under a fresh term of suspension, it will certainly be subject to all consequences as per law and to contentions of petitioner.
Findings of the Court:
Court do not propose to answer this either way in this judgment, taking note of manner in which Rule 198(6) of ‘KCS Rules’ is framed. Suffice to say, if Society deems it necessary to place petitioner under a fresh term of suspension, it will certainly be subject to all consequences as per law and to contentions of petitioner - However, as Court have said, Court deem it appropriate not to answer contentions of either side on this issue, at this time.
Result: Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
1. The petitioner, while working as a Cashier in the services of the 1st respondent-Society, was placed under suspension on 07.07.2021 and period of the same was extended by it until 07.07.2022, as is permissible under Rule 198(6) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘KCS Rules for short). However, admittedly, the Society did not receive any sanction from the competent Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, granting permission to extend the period of suspension and they, consequently, did not issue any further orders to the petitioner after 06.07.2022.
2. While so, it transpires that the Society had approached the Joint Registrar for extension of the period of suspension of the petitioner through their letter dated 30.05.2022, which was considered by the said Authority only much later, culminating in Ext.P2 order dated 11.08.2022.
3. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 on the ground that the said order is impermissible, since it allows continuation of his suspension from 07.07.2022 on a retrospective basis; and therefore, rendering it liable to be set aside.
4. I have heard Sri. B.S. Swathi Kumar - learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. Amrutha Vidhyadharan - learned Standing Counsel for the Society and Smt. Parvathy K. - learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents.
5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P2 was issued by the Joint Registrar in valid exercise of his Statutory powers under Rule 198(6) of the KCS Rules, but conceded that it was issued only on 11.08.2022. She explained that this was because of certain administrative contingencies and pressure of work of the said Authority, but argued that this would make no difference because, through it, he has allowed the Society to continue the petitioner under suspension from 07.07.2022. She, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.
6. Smt. Amrutha Vidhyadharan - learned counsel for the Society, submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are very grave, including that he has misappropriated large amounts of money; and that he is now refusing to co-operate with the disciplinary action. She imputed that the petitioner has been seeking adjournments after adjournments during the enquiry and therefore, that the competent Authority has been incapacitated from concluding it. She, however, admitted - when asked by this Court specifically - that no orders of suspension or continuation of suspension have been issued after 07.07.2022 until now, but sought liberty to her client to do so henceforth.
7. When I consider and analyse the afore rival submissions, it is clear that, whatever be the controversy now projected, the fact remains that the Society has not issued any order, either suspending or continuing the suspension of the petitioner, after 07.07.2022. They appear to have not done so, because they were aware that the Joint Registrar had not permitted continuation of suspension for over the one year period, but which has been done by the said Authority only on 11.08.2022, through Ext.P2, giving it retrospective effect from 07.07.2022.
8. Therefore, the question is whether Ext.P2 order could be found to be valid, to the extent to which it allowed retrospective continuation of suspension of the petitioner from 07.07.2022.
9. There are hardly any precedents covering the field, but, going by Rule 198(6) of the KCS Rules, it is perspicuous that such an order could not have been issued because a Society can continue an employee under suspension for more than a year, only with the prior sanction of the competent Authority. In this case, it is clear that the Joint Registrar did not give any such prior sanction, but issued Ext.P2 only on 11.08.2022, allowing the Society to continue the suspension of the petitioner from 07.07.2022. It is, therefore, without need to expatiate that this order cannot find favour in law.
10. That said, the further question is whether th
Point of Law : Rule 198(6) of the KCS Rules, it is perspicuous that such an order could not have been issued because a Society can continue an employee under suspension for more than a year, only wit....
Court has quashed continuance of petitioner under suspension for want of “prior approval” of statutory Authority, issuance of a fresh order - as if it is a new spell of suspension - would be hit by s....
A fresh suspension cannot occur without prior approval after the maximum period exceeds; it contravenes established legal limits.
Indefinite suspension of an employee without necessity is unjust; timely initiation of disciplinary proceedings is essential.
Suspension orders under Co-operative Societies Act must explicitly state suspension, reasons, duration, and require departmental sanction.
The Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies cannot restore a suspension already lifted by the Committee, as such authority is not vested under the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act.
Suspension - Powers of Registrar - If Registrar, on completion of inquiry finds that there is major defect in the constitution or working or financial condition of society, he may initiate action in ....
The court upheld the legitimacy of the applicant's suspension extension under CCS (CCA) Rules due to ongoing criminal proceedings concerning moral turpitude, justifying the action despite the duratio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
