AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J
The Respondent is a Joint Registrar of Co operative Societies. His said empowerment is in terms of Section 3(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The Co-operative Society which was the first Respondent, in WP(C) 33868 of 2008 made certain appointments in its service. Those appointments were found to be illegal.The competent authority directed the committee of the society to remove those persons from service and also to recover amounts paid to them. That decision was challenged before this Court by the appointed persons. They were relegated to the competent authority. The Government considered the appeal of the society and rejected the application for stay of enforcement of the decision impugned in that appeal. Nevertheless, the appointees continued to officiate. Petitioners, who are the members of that society, moved this Court. It was noted that the government having rejected the stay petition, there was no reason for the continued disobedience of the Coc 67/09 2 directions contained in Ext.P9. At that juncture, it was submitted on behalf of the Joint Registrar that action would be taken in the wake of non-compliance of Ext.P9. It was so directed as per the judgment dated 3.12.2008. No action followed. The appointees continued to officiate. This is on the teeth of the fact that order of the government rejecting the application for stay continues to hold the feet. Petitioners have therefore filed this contempt case.
This contempt case is against an officer who is in the gazetted rank in the service of the State Government, exercising the powers of Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Kerala Co-operative Service Act which carries great responsibilities and duties, if one were to act in any manner befitting the office he holds.
The Respondent filed an affidavit in answer to this case by stating that the appeal is still pending before the government and nothing has been done. Obviously, he had not even understood the contents of the judgment dated 3.12.2008.
After perusing the aforesaid affidavit, this Court minuted order dated 20.2.2009 holding that there is a strong prima facie case for imposition of very heavy costs and also for action under the Contempt of Courts Act. The Respondent was given an opportunity to file a better affidavit to purge himself of the contempt and save himself from the consequences of his conduct, which was noticed as not mere administrative indiscipline but trying to overreach the decision of this Court, delivered on 3.12.2008. More than three months have gone through and nothing worthwhile appears to have been done. The Respondent has filed yet another affidavit taking the stand that he has issued a notice for supersession of the committee u/s 32(1) and that the appeal before the government is still pending. It is shown that in spite of Ext.R1(a) further direction on 20.2.2009 by him, the Respondent could not obtain obedience of his directions, by the committee. On 2.3.2009, the Respondent has issued notice u/s 32(1).
It is not as if that this Court is not aware of the fact that in different situations different officers exercising powers of the Registrar have acted promptly or even over-enthusiastically in exercising powers u/s 32. While this Court is not to suggest any action u/s 32, the case in hand discloses that the Respondent is incompetent to hold the office of the Joint
Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Principal Secretary to the Government in the Department of Co-operation, is directed to file affidavit as to the views of the Government of the continued retention of the Respondent in service and as to why, he shall not be placed under suspension followed by disciplinary action for dereliction of duties and responsibilities attendant to his office in the light of what is stated above. The Principal Secretary in the Department will place such affidavit on record within a period of four weeks from now. Post on 3rd July, 2009.
Hand over copy to learned Government Pleader.