IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory procedures in superseding a Managing Committee and dismissing an employee, ruling that failure to do so renders such actions invalid.

JUDGMENT :

HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

These writ petitions pertain to the affairs of the Poonjar Service Co-operative Bank Limited, No.3963, Kottayam District. The impugned orders under challenge are the proceedings initiated leading to the supersession of the Managing Committee of the bank, the surcharge proceedings initiated, the dismissal of the Secretary, etc.

2. W.P(C) No.3302 of 2019 is filed by the members of the Co-operative Society, who were elected during the election in December 2013. They contend that an audit was conducted in the Society with no adverse remarks till 2016-17 that without incorporating any defects in the audit reports, a list of certain alleged defects were presented in a separate paper, mainly in relation to grant of loans, recovery, etc., that in response to a complaint filed by the Bank, the Joint Director (Audit) issued Ext.P1 constituting a three-member committee to examine the defect, followed with Ext.P2 communication of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies calling for a detailed report in that regard. They further contend that to defeat the directions as above, Ext.P3 was issued by pre-dating the same ordering an inquiry under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act,1969 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Insofar as the term of the Managing Committee was to expire by 28.12.2018, it was resolved to conduct an election, for which resolution was forwarded to the State Co-operative Election Commission, who in turn issued Ext.P4 election notification on 14.11.2018, as per which the procedure for election commenced and was to culminate on 23.12.2018, by the actual conduct of the election. It is at that point of time, the petitioners point out, that the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P5 under Section 32 of the Act superseding the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society referred to above and appointing an Administrator. As an offshoot of Ext.P5, Ext.P6 was issued by the Election Commission on 19.12.2018, cancelling the election notification. The petitioners have sought to challenge Exts.P5 and P6 issued as above.

3. The Managing Committee members of the Society have filed W.P(C) No.7312 of 2019 seeking to challenge Ext.P11 order issued by the Joint Registrar under Section 68(1) of the Act. It is the contention of the petitioners that Ext.P11 does not satisfy the pre-requisite under Section 68(1) of the Act. They have also sought to challenge Ext.P6 order for inquiry under Section 65 of the Act, which is also challenged in the earlier writ petition, apart from challenging Ext.P8 report of inquiry conducted under Section 65 of the Act.

4. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.7349 of 2019 is stated to be the Secretary of the Society who joined the service in 1982 and rose in rank to the post of Secretary on the basis of seniority, in the year 2014. He was to retire on 31.05.2019. On the basis of the proceedings, which are the subject matter of the earlier writ petitions, by Ext.P8 order dated 04.01.2019, the petitioner was suspended. Later, the memo of charges at Ext.P9 was also issued. It is at that point that the afore writ petition is filed before this Court, and during the pendency of the writ petition, Ext.P11 was issued on 31.05.2019, dismissing the petitioner from service. The order of dismissal is sought to be challenged by amending the writ petition, which was permitted by this Court.

5. W.P(C) No.42547 of 2018 is again filed by the Managing Committee members seeking to challenge the supersession under Section 32 of the Act and the cancellation of the election.

6. I have heard Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel assisted by Smt.Shilpa Sreekumar, for the petitioner/s in the first 3 cases and Sri.P.V.Baby for the petitioners in W.P(C) No.4254 of 2018. Sri.Haridas represented the Administrator appointed under the impugned proceedings and Sri.Bimal K. Nath, the learned Government Pleader, appeared for the official respondents.

7. Sri.Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel would contend that: