Writ petitions against cooperative societies are limited by statutory remedies, with jurisdictional issues arising from subcommittee resolutions.

1The Convenor of the Disciplinary Sub Committee constituted by the Director Board of Elikulam Service Cooperative Bank Limited (1st respondent herein) had advised the petitioner, by communication dated 16.10.2001, that in furtherance of the memo that had been issued to him dated 23.7.2001 after due enquiries it had been found that the petitioner was at fault, duly taking notice of the gravity of the lapses. According to him, though it was a case of serious indiscipline, taking notice of the circumstance that there was no past similar conduct from his part, it had been decided to bar two increments with cumulative effect. Ext. P1 is the order. During the period concerned, the petitioner was working in the cadre of Accountant, but working as Branch Manager of Karakkulam Branch of the Bank. He had been kept under suspension during the period of enquiry.

2 Normal remedy, which might have been admissible to the petitioner, is an appeal as prescribed under R.198(4) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as Rules). But the petitioner had resorted to a remedy of proceedings under R.176 of the Rules. Under the said Rule, power is invested in the Registrar to rescind resolutions of a Committee, in given circumstances. It had been contended by the petitioner inter alia that there was no proper enquiry in consonance with the principles of Natural Justice and it was a case of mala fide exercise of powers and circumstance for interference under R.176 was essentially there.

3 The application filed on 19.12.2002 had not been taken up or heard, but however the petitioner came to know about a Memo that had been filed by the counsel representing the Bank before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (General), Kottayam, dated 31.3.2004, whereby the said officer had been informed that there was a resolution taken as No.438 dated 13.3.2004 by the Bank, whereunder the entire disciplinary action taken as against him had been decided to be cancelled, subject to their right to take fresh action in accordance with law. The petitioner had objected to the above request made by the Bank, but no orders have been passed by the Joint Registrar, and in the meanwhile, coming to know that an Enquiry Officer had been appointed to enquire into the allegations against him, he has approached this Court. The enquiry notice is Ext. P4 dated 1.1.5.2004, and because of the interim orders passed by this Court, further proceedings have been stayed.

4 The allegations against the petitioner was that there was a compliant submitted against him by two members of the Bank, who were husband and wife on 14.6.2001, and it constituted grave dereliction of duties. They had alleged about certain indiscreet conduct on the part of the petitioner. Suggestions had been passed over telephone which were likely to hurt the esteem of Smt. Alice Mathew, wife of Mathewkutty Thomas and they had therefore taken the steps for filing a complaint to the Bank. The Memo issued to the petitioner dated 23.7.2001, referred to in Ext. P1, on which the Sub Committee had made enquiries pertained to the above complaint.

5 The contentions of the petitioner are two fold. The first is that the proceedings, whereunder the decision of the Committee had been cancelled by the Director Board was without authority of law. The second is that interference with the jurisdiction of an officer who had authority to examine the issue placed before him under R.176 could not have been initiated or permissible. The cooperative institution, when Ext. P1 came to be passed, had become functus officio in the matter, and it could not have been recalled.

6 A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents about the maintainability of the Writ Petition. It is contended that the application before the Joint Registrar itself was not maintainable, as the petitioner has not resorted to statutory remedy of appeal. Further, it is contended that the decision of the Sub Committee was not a resolution