Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10704
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
HILDA RODRIGUES – Appellant
Versus
THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 38722 OF 2025
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Findings of Court:
The dismissal process adhered to the prescribed rules; thus, the court acknowledges the need for the petitioner to pursue the provided appellate remedy.
Issues: The central questions pertain to the legality of the dismissal and the appropriateness of the conducted inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the petitioner must exhaust the appellate process available under Rule 198(4) as outlined by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969.
Result: The writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P13 Appeal preferred by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, within six weeks, ensuring a hearing opportunity.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.SINDHU R. NAIR, SRI.HARISANKAR R, SMT.ANJALY JIMMICHAN, SMT.JOTHISHA K.A., SRI.JOSEPH T. KOOTTAKKARA
For the Respondents: SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE, SRI. PRENCHAND R. NAIR
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of misconduct leading to dismissal (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defense against dismissal and claims of legality (Para 3) |
| 3. exploration of procedural adherence in dismissals (Para 5) |
| 4. mandating exhaustion of appellate remedies (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2026 The petitioner, who has been working as Senior Supervisor in the Manjeswaram Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, was proceeded against departmentally for alleged misconduct and was imposed with a punishment of dismissal from service as per Ext.P12 order.
2. The petitioner states that Ext.P12 order is highly illegal and arbitrary. The charges framed against the petitioner are frivolous and unreal. The domestic enquiry was conducted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. The petitioner therefore seeks to set aside the order of dismissal.
3. Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of respondents 2 to 6 and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel denied all the material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner are very serious in nature and justifies the extreme penalty imposed on the petitioner. The Standing Counsel also submitted that a writ petition is not maintainable in this case as the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy and the petitioner has availed the remedy also under Rule 198 (4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules , 1969. 4. Heard.
5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the punishment of dismissal imposed on him. The punishment was imposed after following the procedure prescribed under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules , 1969. Rule 198 (4) of the Rules provides for an appellate remedy against the order of punishment imposed on an employee of the Co-operative Society.
6. Evidently, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P13 Appeal before the Board of Directors of the Society invoking Rule 198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules , 1969. As the petitioner has invoked the appellate remedy, the petitioner has to prosecute the same.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P13 Appeal preferred by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of six weeks, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Sd/-
