Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PREETHAKUMARI. K.A. versus CHERANALLOOR SERVICE CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PREETHAKUMARI. K.A. v. CHERANALLOOR SERVICE CO-OP - WP(C) No. 1891 of 2007(A) [2007] RD-KL 9388 (4 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 1891 of 2007(A)

1. PREETHAKUMARI. K.A.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. CHERANALLOOR SERVICE CO-OP.
... Respondent

2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.SOCIETIES

For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

For Respondent :SRI.M.M.MONAYE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

Dated :04/06/2007

O R D E R

K.M.JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C) No.1891 of 2007 A

Dated this the 4th day of June, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The case of petitioner is as follows: The petitioner was working as the Branch Manager of the first respondent/bank. She was placed under suspension alleging series of misappropriation. The bank issued Ext.P2 charge sheet and placed before a Sub Committee. In the meantime, it is the further case of the petitioner that, the Director Board members contacted the petitioner and directed her to settle the matter by paying the amount. Accordingly, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.20,12,297/- towards the total liability by selling off her house and she is now residing in a rented house. According to her, after that, in terms of the settlement she submitted an application for voluntary retirement from service. The petitioner claims to be a subscriber to Self Financing Pension scheme and that she is having 25 years of service. By Ext.P8, an Advocate is appointed as Inquiry Officer and another Advocate as Presenting Officer. According to the petitioner, the action of the Sub Committee is against the assurance given to her. The petitioner has approached this court seeking a direction to permit the petitioner to retire voluntarily from the service of the bank with effect from 30.11.2006 to enable her to get pension under the Self Financing Pension scheme. W.P.(C) No.1891 of 2007

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the bank and also the learned Government Pleader.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is, of course, unable to make out a case that the petitioner has a legal right to seek voluntary retirement from service. However, I make it clear that it is certainly open to the first respondent/bank to consider the application and take a decision as it think fit. Writ petition is accordingly closed. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH)

JUDGE

sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.