Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 20499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1948

WP(C) NO. 9740 OF 2026

PETITIONER:
BIJU V
AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.KUNHIKKANNAN,
PEON/WATCHMAN,
PAYYOLI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE -673 522,
RESIDING AT VADAKKAYIL, P.O.PAYYOLI,
KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 522.

BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON

RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR,
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN DPI JUNCTION,
THYCAUD (PO) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695014.
2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL) KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE JOINT
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G),
PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673604.
3 PAYYOLI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. F1267
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MELADI P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673522.
4 PRESIDENT
PAYYOLI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.
F1267, MELADI P.O., KOZHIKODE,
PIN – 673522.
5 SECRETARY
PAYYOLI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.
F1267, MELADI P.O., KOZHIKODE,
PIN – 673522.
6 DISCIPLINARY SUB COMMITTEE AGAINST BIJU V.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
PAYYOLI SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.
F1267, MELADI P.O., KOZHIKODE,
PIN – 673522.
BY ADV.
SRI.V.VENUGOPAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ, KUM.THULASI K. RAJ, SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY, SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
For the Respondents: SRI.V.VENUGOPAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The court affirmed the validity of a proposal for dismissal pending further procedures, underscoring the necessity for proper disciplinary processes.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The case involves interpretation of employment laws and procedural fairness in disciplinary actions within cooperative societies. Facts of the Case: The petitioner, employed as Peon-cum-Watchman, was suspended due to criminal involvement and unauthorized absence; following various appeals, reinstatement was ordered.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the reinstatement and stated that the current show-cause notice was valid; the decision to propose dismissal had not yet been finalized.

Issues: Key questions included whether the notice constituted a post decisional action and the ability to contest the dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a proposal for dismissal does not preclude the right to respond; the absence of a final decision allows for continued procedural participation.

Result: The writ petition is hence dismissed making it clear that the petitioner will be free to challenge the final orders to be passed, as per law.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2026, THE COURT ON 24.03.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) No.9740 of 2026

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2026

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner joined service under the 3rd respondent-Society as Peon-cum-Watchman on 05.05.2010. He was suspended from service on 16.03.2012 on the ground that he is involved in a criminal case and that he is unauthorisedly absent from duty. The petitioner was involved in Crime No.84/2012 of Payyoli Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427, 341, 321, 149 and 302 IPC.

: 4 :

2. The petitioner was the 3rd accused and he was remanded to judicial custody. Consequently, he was placed under suspension with effect from 16.03.2012 as per Ext.P1. Ext.P2 memo of charges was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent adjourned the disciplinary action and withdrew the suspension order as per Ext.P4 letter. The petitioner could not resume duties as he was restrained from entering Kozhikode District as per the conditions of bail order. The Disciplinary Committee proceeded with the action and decided to terminate the petitioner from service in view of his absence from 14.02.2012.

3. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The Managing Committee, however, dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P7. The petitioner filed ARC No.58/2014 in the Co-operative Arbitration Court. The Co-operative Arbitration Court held that dismissal order without conducting domestic enquiry is invalid. The Arbitration Court, as per Ext.P8 Award dated 11.04.2017, held that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service.

4. The Society preferred Appeal No.51/2017 before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed to reinstate the petitioner. The Tribunal granted liberty to the Society to initiate disciplinary proceedings afresh in case he is found guilty of any criminal offence.

5. The Society filed W.P.(C) No.35314/2018 in this Court challenging Exts.P8 and P9. The writ petition was partly allowed. Direction to reinstate the petitioner was upheld. However, the Society was granted permission to initiate proceedings in accordance with law and to conduct a proper enquiry. The petitioner was reinstated in service on 13.09.2024. To the surprise of the petitioner, he was again suspended from service as per Ext.P13 order dated 13.09.2024.

6. Ext.P14 memo of charges dated 10.12.2024 was served on the petitioner. A copy of Ext.P15 enquiry report dated 31.07.2025 was also served on the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was later served with Ext.P18 order proposing to dismiss him from service. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P19 reply. The petitioner states that Ext.P18 is a post decisional notice terminating the services of the petitioner. Affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is meaningless and a futile process. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner for being absent from duty as it was due to the conditions of bail. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2.

8. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P14, P15 and P18. Ext.P14 is a charge sheet. Ext.P15 is a communication forwarding copy of enquiry report and requiring the petitioner to give his reply. Ext.P18 is also a show-cause notice proposing to dismiss the petitioner from service.

9. The petitioner was initially suspended from service as per Ext.P1. The suspension was based on the petitioner's involvement in a criminal case. Though the suspension was revoked as per Ext.P4 order dated 17.07.2013, the petitioner did not resume duties as the bail condition restrained him from entering the District. Therefore, he was dismissed from service for unauthorised absence as per Ext.P6 order dated 21.08.2013.

10. The Arbitration Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document