2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 89387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHEEL C. H – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WA 1462/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR TH TUESDAY, THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024/14TH KARTHIKA, 1946 WA NO. 1462 OF 2024 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.28851 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SUSHEEL C. H, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.K.S.K.NAIR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, INDIRA GANDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL MANJODI, THALASSERY - 670101 RESIDING AT NANDANAM, CHEMBRA P.O PARAL MAHI, PIN - 670671 BY ADVS.
KALEESWARAM RAJ APARNA NARAYAN MENON CHINNU MARIA ANTONY THULASI K. RAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001 –
3 CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THAVAKKARA, KANNUR, PIN - 670002 5 INDIRA GANDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, INDIRA GANDHI CO-
OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, MANJODI, THALASSERRY, KANNUR, PIN - 670103
6 PRESIDENT INDIRA GANDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL MANJODI, THALASSERY, PIN - 670101
7 DISCIPLINARY SUB COMMITTEE MANJODI, THALASSERY, PIN - 670101
8 GENERAL MANAGER INDIRA GANDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL MANJODI, THALASSERY, PIN - 670101 BY ADVS.
P.N.MOHANAN C.P.SABARI(K/973/2010)
AMRUTHA SURESH(K/000971/2016)
GILROY ROZARIO(K/399/2021)
SMT. VINEETHA B, SR. GP THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.10.2024, THE COURT ON 05.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ. -----------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1462 of 2024 --------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of November, 2024
JUDGMENT
P.G. Ajithkumar, J The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 28851 of 2024 is the appellant. He filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order of suspension. He was working as Administrative Officer in the 5th respondent co-operative hospital. As per Ext.P4 he was placed under suspension. The learned Single Judge as per the judgment dated 16.08.2024 dismissed the writ petition without prejudice to his right to avail the statutory remedy under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. 2. The appellant as the Administrative Officer in the
5th respondent co-operative hospital was responsible to realise insurance amount due to the hospital in relation to the covid period treatments. Alleging that the appellant did not take necessary steps in the matter and thereby occurred serious dereliction in his duties, a show cause notice was issued to him. A copy of the said notice is Ext.P1. The appellant had submitted Ext.P2 requesting extension of time and later he submitted Ext.P3 explanation. Soon, he was placed under suspension as per Ext.P4 dated 02.05.2024 issued by the President of the Hospital.
3. The appellant filed the writ petition setting forth contentions that the President of the Co-operative hospital not being the appointing authority is not empowered to suspend an employee. It was further contended that Ext.P4 was issued without sufficient reason and after a lapse of more than one year from the date of alleged dereliction of duties.
4. The learned Single Judge took the view that the President of a co-operative society can suspend an employee in anticipation of ratification by the managing committee which is the appointing authority. The decision of this Court in Prasanth Maroli v. Kannur Primary Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd and others [2008 (4) KLT 451] was relied on in that regard. It was further held that the challenge of the appellant to Ext.P4 is a dispute coming within the purview of Section 69 (1)(c) read with Section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and therefore the appellant ought to approach the arbitral court. It was held so by relying on