A cooperative-bank administrator cannot terminate employees without following statutory disciplinary procedure.

The writ petitioners were appointed as part-time sweepers by the erstwhile Thrissur District Co-operative Bank following a 2015 selection process.

After the elected Managing Committee was replaced by an Administrator, the petitioners’ services were terminated with immediate effect on 9 November 2017; in August 2018, the Bank also cancelled the selection process and appointments, citing alleged irregularities, including issues concerning reservation, eligibility, age and qualifications.

The petitioners challenged those actions.

The Single Judge set them aside and directed that the consequential benefits follow.

The Bank and Administrator appealed; two unsuccessful applicants to the posts also appealed as third parties.

Whether the writ petitions against the Co-operative Bank were maintainable.

Whether the Administrator could terminate the employees’ services and cancel their appointments without a formal inquiry and inquiry report.

Whether there was a valid ground to interfere with the Single Judge’s judgment.

Under Section 32(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, an Administrator exercises the committee’s powers subject to the Registrar’s control and instructions; Rule 182(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (“KCS Rules”) identifies the committee as the appointing authority.

Rule 184(3) requires prior Registrar approval and a reasonable opportunity to show cause before a probationer is discharged for unsuitability; Rule 198(2) requires written notice of the grounds, an opportunity to defend—including a personal hearing—and written reasons before punishment, while Rules 198(2A)–(2B) provide for inquiry by a disciplinary sub-committee.

Section 74H(12)–(13) of the Act provides for continuation of pending proceedings and the transfer of permanent, regular and probationary employees to the amalgamated bank.

The Court relied on Association of Milma Officers’ Ksheera Bhavan v. State of Kerala for the principle that writ jurisdiction may be exercised where a co-operative society performs a public duty or violates statutory rules; it also relied on Rajan N. v. State of Kerala, Thrissur District Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala and Gangadharan v. Administrator concerning the limits on an Administrator’s powers.

It further applied the principles in Debashish Mohapatra v. District and Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur on procedural fairness in termination, and State of West Bengal v. Jai Hind Private Limited on the absence of review power unless conferred by statute.

The Court held that the writ petitions were maintainable because the dispute involved alleged violations of statutory service rules and the Bank’s functions had a public-law element.

The Administrator terminated the petitioners before issuing the later show-cause memo, without an independent inquiry, and without material showing the Registrar’s concurrence; the subsequent cancellation of appointments likewise followed without a proper inquiry or opportunity to establish the petitioners’ case.

Those actions did not comply with the procedural safeguards in Rules 184 and 198 or the limits imposed by Section 32(4).

Nor could they be justified as correction of mistakes or review of the Managing Committee’s decisions.

The Court also rejected the Bank’s reliance on post-amalgamation recruitment rules, given the specific employee-transfer provisions in Section 74H.

The third-party appellants had not challenged the selection process before the Single Judge’s judgment, and the Court treated their appeals as an afterthought.

It dismissed all four appeals, leaving in place the Single Judge’s order setting aside the impugned actions and directing consequential relief, including reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits.