The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank. The 2nd respondent was an employee of that Co-operative Bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 2nd respondent by the Bank. It ultimately resulted in imposition of punishment of reduction in rank from the post of Assistant Secretary to Internal Audit on the petitioner. In appeal and other proceedings, although the finding of guilt was confirmed, the punishment was modified and it was directed that the 2nd respondent shall be reinstated as Assistant Secretary, but would not be entitled to any salary or other benefits for the period of suspension other than the subsistence allowance already drawn by him. The 2nd respondent filed an application under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, seeking to rescind the resolution of the Bank in respect of denial of salary for the W.P.(C).No.10624 of 2012 2 period during which the 2nd respondent was kept under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings which resulted in the finding of guilt. In the same, the first respondent Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Kannur passed Ext.P6 order holding that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to the relief prayed for in Ext.P5 petition. After sometime the petitioner again filed another petition before the 1st respondent again under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. In that the 1st respondent passed Ext.P11 order directing the petitioner Bank to pay to the 2nd respondent, the salary and other benefits for the period from 28.4.1997 to 11.2.1998, which was the period during which the 2nd respondent was kept under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. Of course two other directions were also issued therein, one regarding the recovery of the loss caused to the Bank from the 2nd respondent and also to disburse retirement benefits due to the 2nd respondent. The Bank is now challenging Ext.P11. W.P.(C).No.10624 of 2012 3 According to them the direction to pay the salary for the period of suspension is clearly illegal and unsustainable. It is submitted that Ext.P6 order has become final wherein such relief prayed for by the 2nd respondent was rejected and that decision was not challenged by the 2nd respondent. Therefore without subjecting Ext.P6 to challenge appropriately on another petition the 1st respondent cannot direct payment of such benefits.
2. The counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the committee of the Bank had passed a resolution No.24 dated 10.11.1998 which is referred to in Ext.P3. It is pursuant to that decision that the 2nd respondent has filed another representation.
3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Apart from the question as to whether the 1st respondent can review his own decision Ext.P6 in another representation filed by the 2nd respondent, I am of opinion that on merits the 2nd respondent is not entitled to salary W.P.(C).No.10624 of 2012 4 and other benefits for the period of suspension. The finding regarding the 2nd respondent's guilt in the disciplinary proceedings has not been interfered with by anybody. After confirming the finding of guilt the punishment only has been reduced. Therefore, the petitioner Bank was certainly entitled to deny the 2nd respondent salary and other allowances for the period of suspension other than subsistence allowance already paid, which only has been done by the petitioner Bank. The 1st respondent could not also have, in exercise of powers under Rule 176 of the kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, interfered with the same. He has rightly come to that conclusion in Ext.P6. That being so, his decision in Ext.P11 to direct payment of salary for the said period notwithstanding Ext.P6 order is clearly illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly that part of Ext.P11, whereby the 1st respondent directs payment of salary and other allowances to the 2nd respondent for the period from 28.4.1997 to 11.2.1998 is hereby quashed. W.P.(C).No.10624 of 2012 5 The petitioner Bank shall compute all retirement benefits due to the petitioner and disburse the same to the 2nd respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE mns/-