Shani M.J, Thattilmandy House, Anthikad, Thrissur 680 643 (Secretary Under Suspension) Puthur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, No. 345 Puthur. P.O, Thrissur 680 014 vs Joint Registrar (General) of Co-Operative Societies and The Puthur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited

K. Surendra Mohan, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P10 order by which she has been placed under suspension with effect from 14.05.2012. According to the petitioner, she has joined the service of the 2nd respondent bank as a Secretary on 04.07.2007. She had brought to the notice of the Board of Directors the fact that a number of persons were continuing as defaulters of the bank even while holding various posts in its administration. Such defaulters included the President of the bank also. Since they did not clear their dues, action was taken against them by the 1st respondent, as evidenced by Ext.P2. They were accordingly disqualified by the 1st respondent. The President challenged Ext.P2 before this Court in W.P(c) No.5330 of 2011. As per Ext.P3 interim order, Ext.P2 was stayed. Thereupon, the President resumed office. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner was issued with an order of suspension dated 23.02.2011 alleging various irregularities against her. The petitioner continued under suspension for more than a year and was reinstated in service on 20.04.2012. Hardly three days thereafter, on 23.04.2012, the petitioner was issued with a fresh show cause notice on the allegation that she had misbehaved with the President. The petitioner replied to the allegation by submitting Ext.P9 reply. However, without considering the explanation of the petitioner in the proper perspective, Ext.P10 order has been issued suspending the petitioner again. Though the petitioner has submitted Ext.P11 representation to the 1st respondent, she complains that no action has been taken thereon, till date.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been subjected to victimisation of the worst order. For the only reason that the petitioner had pointed out the names of defaulters to the bank, the petitioner is being penalised and harassed, it is submitted. For the above reason, it is contended that the action initiated against the petitioner is unsustainable in law and fact.

I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

In view of the fact that Ext.P11 is pending consideration of the 1st respondent, it is only appropriate that the said authority considers the grievance of the petitioner, in the first instance. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner set out in her representation Ext.P11, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.