IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary disputes involving co-operative societies must be resolved through the Co-operative Arbitration Court, and recourse to writ jurisdiction is premature when alternative remedies exist.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5452 of 2023, being dissatisfied by the judgment dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 order dated 26.05.2021 issued by the Disciplinary Sub-Committee of the 3^rd respondent Keezhallur Service Cooperative Bank (‘Bank’ in short) demoting the appellant to the post of Senior Clerk from the post of Branch Manager having found him guilty in the disciplinary proceedings and also Ext.P10 order dated 13.01.2023 issued by the 4^th respondent President of the Bank suspending him from service pending disciplinary proceedings, was dismissed.

2. The appellant entered service of the 3^rd respondent Bank in the year 1987 as a Sales Manager and by step by step promotion he reached to the post of Manager of the Bank. On 15.04.2021, Ext.P1 show cause notice was issued to the appellant alleging that as a Branch Manager of the Bank the appellant was deputed by the Secretary to take the valuation of the properties which were offered as security by the members of the Bank for availing loan and the valuation shown by the appellant is an exaggerated amount. To the show cause notice, the appellant gave Ext.P2 reply dated 19.04.2021. However, as per Ext.P3 order dated 26.05.2021 issued by the 4^th respondent, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter a domestic enquiry was conducted by appointing a retired Assistant Registrar as the Enquiry Officer. As per Ext.P4 enquiry report dated 12.11.2021, the allegations against the appellant were found against him and based on that report by Ext.P5 order dated 26.05.2021 of the Bank, the appellant was demoted as Senior Clerk. The appellant then filed Ext.P6 appeal dated 04.02.2022 before the 5^th respondent, the Managing Committee of the Bank. Thereafter with similar allegations, Ext.P7 show cause notice dated 24.11.2022 was issued to him to which the appellant gave Ext.P9 reply dated 07.12.2022. The appellant was again placed under suspension by Ext.P10 order dated 13.01.2023 issued by the 4^th respondent. The appellant then submitted Ext.P11 representation dated 10.02.2023 to the 4^th respondent praying for revocation of the suspension. It was thereafter, the appellant filed the writ petition which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge issuing a direction to the 3^rd respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 months.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that before initiating disciplinary proceedings which culminated in Ext.P5 order of punishment no charge memo was issued to the appellant. Now the appellant is retired from service and he was not paid gratuity which cannot be withheld stating the reason of disciplinary proceedings.

5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that a new charge memo was issued to the appellant and disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the basis of that charge memo. Against Ext.P5 order, the appellant preferred Ext.P6 statutory appeal before the 5^th respondent Managing Committee of the Bank. Moreover, the dispute between the appellant and the Bank is the one challengeable before the Co- operative Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969 (‘the Act’ in short).

6. In the writ petition, the appellant challenged Ext.P5 order of punishment by which he was demoted as Senior Clerk from the post of Manager. Against that order, the appellant preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the 5^th respondent. Hence it is premature to seek a relief in respect of the same in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of t