Princy Samuel vs The Chairman, Sub Committee, Ksheera Ulpadaka Co-Operative Society (KUCS)

K. Surendra Mohan, J.

The petitioner, Secretary of the 2nd respondent, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order by which she has been placed under suspension. Ext.P4 is dated 21.02.2014. The petitioner has been continuing under suspension, even since the date of the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.P4 has been issued by a person who is not competent to issue the same. Rule 198 (6) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules'' for short) mandates that an employee can be suspended only by the appointing authority. The petitioner is appointed by the Managing Committee of the 2nd respondent. My attention is drawn to Ext.P4 order to point out that the same has been issued by the Chairman, Sub Committee. Therefore, it is contended that, Ext.P4 is liable to be set aside.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The contention of respondents 1 and 2 is that, suspension being a matter relating to the service of the petitioner, the dispute in the present case is a matter that can be challenged only under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'' for short). Therefore, it is contended that this writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

Heard. Rule 198(6) stipulates that it is the authority competent to appoint a person who has the power to suspend an employee. In the present case, Ext.P4 has been issued by the Chairman, Sub Committee of the 2nd respondent. The said authority cannot issue any order suspending the petitioner. Despite filing a counter affidavit, there is no explanation regarding the specific question that has been raised by the petitioner, that the authority suspending the petitioner was not competent to do so. Therefore, it has to be held that Ext.P4 has been issued by a person who was not competent to issue the same. A Division Bench of this Court has considered the scope of Rule 198(6) in Chandramathi K.K. Vs. Vadakkumpad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Another, . That was also a case in which an authority that was not competent to issue the order of suspension had issued the same. In the said case, instead of the Managing Committee it was the Sub Committee that had issued the order of suspension. In the present case, it is the Chairman of the Sub Committee who has issued the same. Therefore, Ext.P4 cannot be sustained.

In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is set aside. It is made clear that the setting aside of Ext.P4 will not affect the power of the competent authority to issue a fresh suspension order, if the situation warrants the issue of such an order.