Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J.
The Managing Committee Muvattupuzha Primary Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General) & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) Nos.6407 of 2024, 3239 of 2024 and 5680 of 2024
Decided On : 04-03-2024
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(2); Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477A, 120B; Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rule 198(6) - Suspension of employee - The Managing Committee's request for extension of suspension was rejected by the Registrar, leading to the employee's reinstatement. The court emphasized that indefinite suspension without necessity is unjust. (Paras 2, 3, 9, 10)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - The court ruled that the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and the lack of pending criminal cases justified the rejection of the extension of suspension. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The 2nd respondent was suspended due to corruption allegations, and the Managing Committee sought to extend the suspension beyond one year without proper justification. The employee contested the suspension and sought reinstatement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Managing Committee failed to justify the extension of suspension and ordered the employee's reinstatement with subsistence allowance.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the suspension extension and the necessity of continued suspension during pending disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that indefinite suspension is not permissible without necessity and that the Managing Committee's failure to act timely undermined their request for extension.
Result: W.P.
(C) Nos.3239 and 6407 of 2024 are dismissed and W.P.
(C) No.5680 of 2024 is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
W.P.(C) Nos.3239 and 6407 of 2024 are filed by the Managing Committee of a primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank and W.P.(C) No.5680 of 2024 is filed by the 2nd respondent/2nd accused.
Since a common issue arises in all these cases between the same party, the petitions are heard together and common judgment is passed.
2. W.P.(C) No.3239 of 2024 is taken as a leading case and the facts in brief as follows:
The 2nd respondent was suspended from service with effect from 25.1.2023 as the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) registered cases against the 2nd respondent under Sections 13(1),(c),(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act 1988 and under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Ext.P3 is the suspension order dated 25.1.2023. Since the original period of suspension was about to end, the Managing Committee decided to extend the same by a further period of 6 months. The said extension was due to expire on 24.1.2024. On 22.11.2023, the Managing Committee took a decision that the enquiry was not finalised, so the suspension has to be extended for another period of 6 months and decided to get prior approval from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as mandated under Rule 198(6) of Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the Rules’). After the decision, Ext.P5 was issued to the 1st respondent seeking permission for extension by a period of 6 months from 25.1.2024. The 1st respondent considered the request of the petitioner and by Ext.P6 letter dated 19.1.2024, took a conscious decision to reject approval for extension of the suspension. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the request for extension of suspension, The Managing Committee impugns Ext.P6 in this Writ Petition.
3. In the meanwhile, after the rejection of the request of the Managing Committee for extension of the suspension of the 2nd respondent, she filed a petition on 25.1.2024 before the Assistant Registrar (General), Muvattupuzha, complaining that she is not reinstated even after the extension sought is rejected. The Assistant Registrar (General), Muvattupuzha, by letter dated 25.1.2024, directed the Managing Committee of the bank to reinstate the employee forthwith. W.P.(C) No.5680 of 2024 is filed by the employee for quashing the suspension order and for a direction to the respondents to pay full salary as subsistence salary from 26.7.2023 onwards as envisaged under Rule 198(6) of the Rules, 1969 and to reinstate the petitioner.
4. At the time of admission of W.P.(C) No.3239 of 2024, an interim order was passed by this court staying Ext.P6 to the extent of rejecting the request for extension.
5. A counter affidavit is filed in W.P.(C) No.3239 of 2024 by the 2nd respondent, wherein it is contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as Ext.P6 order passed by the Joint Registrar is appealable under section 83 (1)(j) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The allegation raised that the 2nd respondent, along with the Managing Committee in the office, misappropriated an amount of 65 lakhs, is incorrect and baseless. It is after 6 years of the alleged mis-appropriation that the defacto complainant filed a complaint to VACB and FIR is registered on 23.7.2022. It is true that the 2nd respondent was placed under suspension by the order of the Managing Committee based on the direction of 1st respondent Joint Registrar. The Joint Registrar directed the bank on the basis of the direction issued by the Government, which is impermissible in law. As per Rule 198(6) of the Rules, the Registrar is only having the authority to give prior approval for extending the suspension exceeding one year.
6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relied on two judgments of this court in Suresh V. v. The Joint Registrar (General) [2018 (3) KLT 320] and Mohammedkutty v. Secretary to the Government (2002 KHC 183). As per rule 198(6) of the Rules, in no case no employe
Indefinite suspension of an employee without necessity is unjust; timely initiation of disciplinary proceedings is essential.
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....
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 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.
The extension of suspension orders without the recommendation of the Review Committee and failure to extend the suspension within the prescribed period rendered the suspension orders invalid.
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.
Continued suspension without charge sheet issuance past 90 days isn't automatically void; justification based on severity of allegations and public interest may uphold the extension.
Suspension valid if reviewed by Committee before 90 days expiry even if formal order issued shortly after; identical provisions in CCS Rules and ESIC Regulations; competent authority includes Discipl....
A fresh suspension cannot occur without prior approval after the maximum period exceeds; it contravenes established legal limits.
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
