Due process under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act requires notice and hearing prior to appointing a new Enquiry Officer after an adverse report.

1. The petitioners' a District Co - operative Society and its Board of Directors' have a common grievance: It is impermissible for the second respondent to order a series of enquiries into the same set of allegations.

2. Briefly stated, on 28/11/2014, through Ext. P2 the second respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the alleged irregularities as regards the tender for constructing a building under the direction of the second respondent managing committee. As seen from Ext. P2, the second respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer under S.66(2) of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Act, 1969 ('the Act'). In the course of time, the Enquiry Officer submitted Ext. P8 report concluding that there were no irregularities committed by the second respondent.

3. Later, the second respondent issued Ext. P11 proceedings dated 06/06/2015 appointing another Enquiry Officer on the same allegations. That apart, he has also required a Vigilance Officer, ostensibly invoking powers under S.68A of the Act, to look in to the issue. In turn, the Vigilance Officer issued Ext. P13 notice to the petitioners requiring them to participate in the enquiry being undertaken by him. Thus, aggrieved by Exts. P10 and P11, the petitioners have approached this Court.

4. Sri. P. C. Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that under S.66 of the Act the Joint Registrar (discharging the functions of the Registrar) can himself enquire into the affairs of the society exercising his supervisory powers or delegate the same to any other person. According to him, the said delegate need not be an employee of the Department. He has further contended that Ext. P10 is ex facie illegal and unsustainable on the simple premise that if Ext. P9 order, i.e., the first enquiry report, stands, there is no occasion for the second respondent to appoint another Enquiry Officer.

5. In other words, if the second respondent for whatever reasons is not satisfied with Ext. P9 enquiry report, he ought to have put the petitioners on notice in terms of S.66(5) of the Act. And only after hearing them, could he have passed an order setting aside, if it is legally sustainable, Ext. P9 order; only then can the second respondent appoint another Enquiry Officer. The learned counsel has strenuously contended that Ext. P10 order appointing another Enquiry Officer is quite laconic and does not spell out any reasons either.

6. As regards Ext. P12, a notice from the Vigilance Officer, the learned counsel would contend that if the proceedings initiated under S.66 of the Act are pending, the second respondent cannot take recourse to S.68A of the Act. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Ext. P14 circular, in which clauses 10 and 11 are relevant.

7. Sri Arun Chandran, the learned counsel for the additional 7th respondent, has submitted that the Enquiry Officer, who submitted Ext. P9 report, retired from service two months prior to his submitting Ext. P9 report. In fact, in that regard, one Mr. P. N. Sandeep filed a complaint before the Registrar, who in turn directed the Joint Registrar to appoint another Enquiry Officer.

8. The learned counsel, to his credit, has strenuously tried to impress upon the Court that under S.66 of the Act, an Officer of the Department, apart from the Joint Registrar acting in the capacity of a Registrar, could be appointed to enquire into the affairs of any society. Even before the enquiry Officer could submit Ext. P9 report, asserts the learned counsel, he had seized to be an employee of the Department. For he retired from service on his attaining the age of superannuation. The report submitted subsequently by the superannuated employee lost i