JUDGMENT :

SATHISH NINAN, J.

1. Petitioner is an employee of the respondent Society. Disciplinary proceedings initiated against her by the Society was withdrawn without prejudice to the right to proceed afresh. The said course was adopted in the light of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Kodanchery SCB vs. Joshy Varghese, 2020 (4) KLT 129 which held that memo of charges could not be issued by the disciplinary sub committee. The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the first and second respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and to grant salary and all other benefits from 11.07.2022.

(ii) Declare that petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service and to grant monitory benefits from 11.07.2022 as the memo of charges are withdrawn.”

2. Heard learned counsel Sri. C.P. Sabari, on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. Arjun Raghavan, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Relying on the judgment in Mathew Joseph vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, ILR 2022 (4) Ker. 555, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, a suspension order cannot exist independent of charge memo and that since charge memo was withdrawn by the respondents, the suspension order ceases. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with the entire back wages, it is contended.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent would on the other hand contend that the earlier proceedings were withdrawn on a technicality and specifically reserving the right to initiate afresh. It is not correct to contend that consequent withdrawal of the charge memo on the afore ground, the order of suspension was also effaced.

5. Rule 198 of the Co-operative Societies Rules deals with disciplinary action against the employees. Rule 198(6) provides for suspending an employee pending enquiry into charges. An order of suspension is often a prelude to a disciplinary proceeding. When an enquiry is in contemplation, and the employer considering the gravity of the allegations deem it appropriate to keep away the employee from services, an order of suspension is issued. In Pattanakkad Coir Mats and Matting Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Project Officer (Coir), 1998 (1) KLT 570, this Court held that, suspension pending enquiry into charges is not to be narrowly understood to mean suspension pending enquiry into formal charges which are already framed. It is only to be understood as an order of suspension to facilitate a contemplated formal enquiry into certain serious allegations levelled against the employee.

6. In the case at hand, the disciplinary proceedings suffered from a procedural infirmity since the memo of charge was issued by an incompetent authority. It is for the said reason that fresh proceedings had to be initiated. The fresh proceeding is only from the stage of issuance of charge memo. It is not correct to say that there is an automatic cessation of the prior order of suspension made in contemplation of enquiry.

7. In Mathew Joseph's case (supra) relied on by the petitioner, on finding the earlier disciplinary proceedings to be vitiated, a fresh order of suspension was issued. It was in the said circumstances that the court held that, the employee must be deemed to have been in service prior to the second order of suspension. In Kodanchery SCB vs. Joshy Varghese (supra), the Division Bench held that, in the event of non-initiation of fresh disciplinary proceedings or failure to conclude the proceedings within three months, the delinquent shall be reinstated, indicating thereby that, the order of suspension continued.

8. Suspension having been made in contemplation of enquiry and the memo of charges having been withdrawn on technical flaw, and the withdrawal being with reservation to proceed afresh on the same allegations/ charges, there would not be automatic withdrawal of suspension.

9. Therefore, the prayer of the petiti