The doctrine of election precludes an aggrieved employee from simultaneously pursuing both a departmental appeal and an arbitration proceeding before the Co-operative Arbitration Court for the same disciplinary relief.

JUDGMENT

Since a common issue is involved in these writ petitions, they were heard and disposed of by a common judgment.

W.P.(C)No.11715 of 2025

2. The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P8 order issued by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, in R.P.No.204/2024. The petitioners are a Primary Agricultural Credit Society and its Board of Directors. It is contended that the 1^st respondent, while working as Secretary of the 1^st petitioner Society, acted against the interest of the Society. Thereupon, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 1^st respondent, and an enquiry was ordered. Thereafter, by Ext.P1, a punishment was imposed, reverting the 1^st respondent from the post of Secretary to the post of Senior Clerk. It was challenged before the Appellate authority, the Board of Directors, under Rule 198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1969’) by filing Ext.P2 appeal dated 21.08.2023. The 1^st respondent, without waiting for an order on Ext.P2, on the very next day, i.e., on 22.08.2023, approached the Co-operative Arbitration Court by filing Ext.P3 - ARC No.47/2023, challenging Ext.P1 order issued by the Disciplinary Sub Committee. An interim order was issued by the Co-operative Arbitration Court, injuncting further appointment to the post of Secretary, which was challenged before this Court by the petitioners herein, filing W.P. (C)No.34044/2023. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment directing the petitioners to approach the Arbitration Court and to file their objection. Thereupon, I.A. No. 2 of 2023 was filed in ARC No. 47/2023 requesting to dismiss the suit on the ground of maintainability. Thereafter, the Co-operative Arbitration Court found that the suit is not maintainable as the 1st respondent has an effective alternative remedy to file a statutory appeal, and by Ext P6 order, dismissed ARC No.47/2023 and allowed the interlocutory application regarding maintainability. After the issuance of Ext.P6, the appellate authority considered Ext.P2 appeal and, as per Ext.P7 order, modified the punishment to reversion to the post of ‘Accountant’ instead of ‘Senior Clerk’. In the meantime, the 1^st respondent challenged Ext.P6 order of the Co-operative Arbitration Court, which held that the ARC is not maintainable, by filing a Revision Petition No. 204/2024. The Co- operative Tribunal allowed the same as per Ext.P8 upholding the contention of the 1^st respondent that the order issued by the Disciplinary Sub Committee under Rule 198 can be directly challenged before the Co-operative Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1969’), without resorting to the remedy available under Rule 198 (4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and remitted the matter back to the Co-operative Arbitration Court for a fresh consideration. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Adv.M.R.Anison, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that it is not proper on the part of the 1strespondent to have approached the Co-operative Arbitration Court challenging the order of the Disciplinary Sub Committee, after having preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors as provided under Rule 198(4) of the Rules, 1969. The order passed by the Appellate Authority under Rule 198(4) of the Rules, 1969, is still in force and has not been challenged by the 1strespondent before any competent forum. He would further submit that though this Court in Krishnan T v. Joi