JUDGMENT : The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: (i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders quashing Ext.P3 order of suspension. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding the first respondent to comply with the provisions of Rule 198(6) of the Co-operative Societies Rules. (iv) issue such other orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner is the Regional Manager of the Kerala State Co-operative Housing Federation Limited, the second respondent herein. The first respondent is the Managing Partner of the second respondent and the second respondent is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 21 of 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). The third respondent is the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, she is a widow and a person suffering from various health problems. She is not able to climb stairs. It is alleged that, despite knowing about the health problems of the petitioner, the first respondent has been harassing her for the past three years. She has alleged that she is compelled to occupy the first or second floor of the office building, though she could have been accommodated on the ground floor thereof. 3. The second respondent is also known as the Housefed, Kerala. The primary object of the second respondent is to make available necessary finance to its members. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that being one of the most efficient and effective officers of the second respondent, when it was decided on 11.3.2010 to constitute a Loan Recovery and Monitoring Cell with the object of reducing the mounting overdues, the petitioner was posted as the Head of the Loan Recovery and Monitoring Cell. Accordingly, as per order dated 1.6.2010, the petitioner was posted as the Head of the said Cell. As per Ext.Pl order dated 1.6.2010, the petitioner was directed to hand over charge of the post of Regional Manager that she was holding, to Smt. P.J. Hermine Lucy and to assume charge as the Head of Recovery of the Loan Recovery and Monitoring Cell, Head Office, Ernakulam. As per Ext.Pl order dated 1.6.2010, the petitioner was directed to hand over charge of the post of Regional Manager that she was holding, to Smt. P.J. Hermine Lucy and to assume charge as the Head of Recovery of the Loan Recovery and Monitoring Cell, Head Office, Ernakulam. As per the above order, some other officers were also re-deployed to various other posts. Pursuant to Ext.Pl order, the petitioner handed over charge to the person mentioned in Ext.Pl and proceeded to assume charge of her new post. Since the petitioner had already handed over charge, she had to assume charge on 4.6.2010 itself. However, the first respondent was on leave on 3.6.2010 and 4.6.2010. Since the petitioner had been directed by Ext.P1 to assume charge in her new post, she assumed charge as per Ext.P1 joining report. She could not inform the above fact to the first respondent for the reason that he was on leave on the said date. After assuming charge as stated above, she also signed the Attendance Register. However, on 5.6.2010, she was suspended from service by the first respondent alleging that she had signed the Attendance Register of the Head Office, without any authority. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the said action of the first respondent. 5. According to the petitioner, the Board of the second respondent is the appointing authority of the petitioner as well as the first respondent. No meeting of the second respondent was convened at any time between 1.6.2010 and 5.6.2010. The first respondent had no power to suspend the petitioner for the reason that the said officer was not the appointing authority of the petitioner. Therefore, Ext.P3 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 6. It is further alleged that no justifiable reason is mentioned in Ext.P3 warranting the suspension of the petitioner. Therefore, it is alleged by the petitioner that she has been placed under suspension without any justification. Though she had filed Ext.P4 representation before the second respondent on 8.6.2010, the same has not been considered. Therefore, she has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 order of suspension. 7. On receipt of notice from this Court, the first and second respondents entered appearance through their lawyer. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. Though she had filed Ext.P4 representation before the second respondent on 8.6.2010, the same has not been considered. Therefore, she has approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 order of suspension. 7. On receipt of notice from this Court, the first and second respondents entered appearance through their lawyer. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. According to the first respondent disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for causing loss to the second respondent to the tune of Rs.85,206/- and a memo was served on her on 11.5.2009. The proceedings are alleged to be still pending. According to the first respondent the petitioner had come to the office on 4.6.2010 with a request to join duty. However, since he was on leave, she was asked to join duty before the next senior officer, which she did not accept. Thus, an undesirable situation was created in the office, which is 'against the norms, procedure and practices of the Head Office1. Thereafter, when the first respondent returned, the President was informed of the incident and it was decided to place the petitioner under suspension, pending enquiry. Therefore, an office note was drafted to implement the same, subject to approval of the Board. The office note was submitted to the President who assented to the same on 5.6.2010. Thereafter, a draft order was prepared and put up for approval to the Managing Director which was ordered on 7.6.2009 to be placed before the Board for approval. The Board that met on 8.6.2010 ratified the said decision and the first respondent was authorised to go ahead with further proceedings. Therefore, a charge memo dated 6.7.2010 with a statement of allegations was served on the petitioner. According to the Managing Director, he had sufficient jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner. He had not done so on his own. But, he has suspended the petitioner in the facts and circumstances mentioned above. The first respondent has also taken strong exception to the personal allegations made by the petitioner against him in the Writ Petition. The second respondent has not filed any counter affidavit in this case. 8. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit in answer to the statements in the counter affidavit. According to the petitioner, she had assumed charge and joined duty before Sri. P. Padmanabhan Nair, Deputy General Manager (Accounts) as the first respondent was not available on 4.6.2010. The second respondent has not filed any counter affidavit in this case. 8. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit in answer to the statements in the counter affidavit. According to the petitioner, she had assumed charge and joined duty before Sri. P. Padmanabhan Nair, Deputy General Manager (Accounts) as the first respondent was not available on 4.6.2010. The said person is the senior most officer. Ext.P2 was received by the said officer, initialled and was handed over the concerned section. According to the petitioner, on 4.6.2010, the first respondent had left the office after handing over charge to a lady Section Officer, though there were other senior officers available in the office. After so joining duty, she had gone to Smt Asiyakutty who was holding charge of the Deputy General Manager (Administration) for signing the Attendance Register. She did not enter the name of the petitioner in the Attendance Register as required and therefore, the petitioner herself had entered her name and signed the same. 9. It is the further contention of the petitioner that since she had already handed over charge to Smt. PJ. Hermine Lucy on 4/6/2010 itself, she had to assume charge in her new posting immediately so as to avoid break in service. It was for the said reason that she had entered her name in the Attendance Register and signed the same. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the deficiency in duty, if any was on the part of Smt. Asiyakutty who was the person in charge. Even assuming that the entire allegations made against her are true, the petitioner submits that the allegations are not grave enough to place her under suspension. Therefore, Ext.PS order has been issued without proper application of mind. For the above reasons, she prays for setting aside Ext.PS order of suspension. 10. I have heard Mr. Alphonse and Mr. Noble Mathew for the petitioner, Mr. Mohan C. Menon for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for the third respondent. I have anxiously considered the contentions of the rival parties and have perused the records produced before me. 11. Though certain unsavoury allegations have been made by the petitioner against the first respondent, I do not propose to examine the correctness thereof for the reason that they are neither germane nor essential for the determination of the issues that arise for consideration in this writ petition. 12. 11. Though certain unsavoury allegations have been made by the petitioner against the first respondent, I do not propose to examine the correctness thereof for the reason that they are neither germane nor essential for the determination of the issues that arise for consideration in this writ petition. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a senior official of the second respondent - Federation. As per Ext.P1, she has been posted as the Head of Recovery, Loan Recovery and Monitoring Cell, Head Office, Ernakulam. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that she had been found suitable and competent to occupy such an important post under the first respondent. It is also worth remembering that the Loan Recovery and Monitoring Cell was created for the purpose of ensuring the proper recovery of amounts advanced by the first respondent Federation. In view of the above, it is evident that the petitioner is a senior and competent officer of the first respondent. 13. Ext.P1 shows that the petitioner has been directed to hand over charge as Regional Manager, Ernakulam to Smt. PJ. Hermine Lucy and to assume charge in her new post. The relevant portion of Ext.P1 is extracted below for easy reference: "1. Smt. Philomina Dominic, Regional Manager, Ernakulam is posted as the Head of Recovery of the Loan Recovery and Monitoring Cell and she is directed to hand over the charge of Regional Manager to Smt. PJ. Hermine Lucy, Regional Manager and assume charge as Head of Recovery of the Loan Recovery and Monitoring Cell, Head Office, Ernakulam." The wording of the above order shows that, while the petitioner has been directed to hand over charge to Smt. PJ. Hermine Lucy as the Regional Manager, Ernakulam, she has been directed to "assume charge" as Head of Recovery of the Recovery and Monitoring Cell, Head Office, Ernakulam. The direction in Ext.P1 to assume charge is attributable to the fact that the post of Head of Recovery was a newly created one and there was no other incumbent from whom the petitioner could take charge. Pursuant to Ext.Pl order, the petitioner handed over charge to her successor in office as the Regional Manager, Ernakulam and proceeded to assume charge of her new post. She has so assumed charge, as per Ext.P2 joining report. Pursuant to Ext.Pl order, the petitioner handed over charge to her successor in office as the Regional Manager, Ernakulam and proceeded to assume charge of her new post. She has so assumed charge, as per Ext.P2 joining report. It is worth noticing that Ext.P1 does not direct the petitioner to report for duty or to take charge after reporting to either the first respondent - Managing Director or any other superior officer. Ext.P1 has categorically direct her to "assume charge". According to the petitioner, she has joined duty by submitting Ext.P2 before Mr. Padmanabhan Nair, Deputy General Manager (Accounts) on 4.6.2010, since the first respondent was on leave. The above averment of the petitioner has not been controverted by the first respondent. Therefore, there appears to be nothing wrong in the manner in which the petitioner assumed charge of her new responsibilities. 14. The petitioner has been placed under suspension as per Ext.PS. The allegation in Ext.PS is that, she had without the knowledge or permission of either the first respondent or some other responsible officer, she had written her name in the Attendance Register of the Head Office and signed the same. The said conduct is stated to be a violation of the office procedure and the rules. No manual of office procedure or rules have been produced before me or referred to by any of the respondents to substantiate their allegation that the conduct of the petitioner was a violation of the rules or office procedure, as alleged. On the basis of the above allegation, it is further alleged that the petitioner is guilty of dereliction of duty. 15. As already noticed above, there is no evidence or material before me to substantiate the allegation that any rule or office .procedure has been violated by the petitioner. There is no explanation as to how the conduct of the petitioner has resulted in dereliction of her duty. Therefore, it is clear that Ext.P3 has been issued without any justification or proper application of mind. Though it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is a person against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated for causing loss to the 2nd respondent to the tune of Rs.85,206/- for which a memo was served on her on 11.5.2009, it is clear that her present suspension is not the said allegation. Though it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is a person against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated for causing loss to the 2nd respondent to the tune of Rs.85,206/- for which a memo was served on her on 11.5.2009, it is clear that her present suspension is not the said allegation. The said memo was issued in the year 2009 and the disciplinary proceedings are alleged to be pending. There can be no reason for suspending her at this length of time for allegations that relate to the year 2009. Further, in spite of the existence of such disciplinary proceedings, she was found suitable and was posted as the Head of Recovery by the second respondent-Federation, as per Ext.P1 on 1.6.2010. Therefore, the said contention cannot be accepted as the reason for her suspension. 16. A further contention is raised by the petitioner that the Managing Director not being the appointing authority was incompetent to issue the order of suspension and that the same has therefore been issued without jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on Rule 198(6) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (The 'Rules' for short) which provides that it is the authority competent to appoint an employee who has the power to suspend him. The said contention is answered in the counter affidavit contending that the President of the Board had been contacted by the Managing - Director and it was decided to place the petitioner under suspension, pending enquiry. Therefore, an office note was drafted to implement the same, subject to the approval of the Board. The office note was thereafter submitted to the President who assented to the same on 5.6.2010. 17. It is clear from the averments in the counter affidavit that there is not much of a dispute regarding the fact that the appointing authority in relation to the petitioner is the Board. That is the reason why it is contended that the Board which met on 18.6.2010 had ratified the decision suspending the petitioner, after discussions. It is also clear from the sequence of events narrated in the counter affidavit that, it was the President who was contacted by the first respondent in this regard. It is not clear from the counter affidavit whether the decision to suspend the petitioner was taken by the President or the first respondent Managing Director. It is also clear from the sequence of events narrated in the counter affidavit that, it was the President who was contacted by the first respondent in this regard. It is not clear from the counter affidavit whether the decision to suspend the petitioner was taken by the President or the first respondent Managing Director. Thereafter, what is stated is that the President 'assented' to the same on 5.6.2010. There are absolutely no records produced to evidence the above sequence of events narrated in the counter affidavit. Further, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the sequence of events as narrated in the counter affidavit satisfies the requirement of Rule 198(6) of the Rules. In the absence of any evidence to show that the Board of the second respondent which is the appointing authority of the petitioner had taken any decision to suspend the petitioner, it cannot be held that Ext.P3 order is issued in accordance with law. 18. The power of suspension is a power that is available to the appointing authority, which can be exercised wherever it is necessary to do so. An order of suspension is primarily an administrative order, but it cannot be passed without proper application of mind. It is usually resorted to when the charge against the delinquent employee is serious enough to justify his discontinuance in the post held by him. . In the case of offences of lesser gravity, the delinquent employee can be kept away from the post even by transfer. An order of suspension is usually issued essentially in public interest. In Muhammed v State of Kerala ( 1997(2) KLT 394 ), Radhakrishnan, J. (as he then was) has made the following observations while considering the vires of an order of suspension, relying on various decisions of the Apex Court. "It was held it will not be an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. Court or Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. Court or Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. Suspension must be a step in and to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry" (para 17). 19. A similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Surendran K. v. Government of Kerala and others (2008(3) ILR (Kerala) 587). "Whether an employee should be suspended pending enquiry will depend upon various circumstances. Suspension pending enquiry through cannot be considered as punishment, it cannot be disputed that it causes real hardship to an employee. The stigma attached cannot be ignored. The object in placing an employee under suspension pending enquiry is to enable the administration to conduct the proceedings smoothly so as to establish the allegations or the charge against the employee. If he is allowed to continue on duty, there may be occasion for tampering with the evidence so that the investigation cannot be successfully conducted. The power to suspend is discretionary. There should be material to justify the suspension. The order should be free from the taint of mala fides, arbitrariness and extraneous considerations. Subjective satisfaction regarding suspension should be based on objective considerations and relevant circumstances. The suspension order should be sparingly passed in compelling circumstances." (para 4). 20. In the above case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that she had written her name in the attendance register of the Head Office and signed the Attendance Register. It is not in dispute that she had submitted Ext.P2 joint report before so signing the Attendance Register. The explanation of the petitioner is that she had to enter her name by herself because the Section Officer had declined to enter her name. At best, the act of the petitioner can only be characterised as an impropriety. Since the petitioner had gone to the Head Office to assume charge pursuant to Ext.P1 order, her act cannot be described as a dereliction of duty or a serious misconduct justifying her suspension. At best, the act of the petitioner can only be characterised as an impropriety. Since the petitioner had gone to the Head Office to assume charge pursuant to Ext.P1 order, her act cannot be described as a dereliction of duty or a serious misconduct justifying her suspension. Therefore, even without going to the question as to whether the suspension order has been issued by an authority competent to do so, it has to be held that Ext.P3 is unsustainable. In the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, there is no necessity for keeping her away from the post that she was holding. However, Ext.P3 has been issued without taking into account any of the above aspects or the materials produced. For the above reasons, Ext.P3 is liable to be set aside. I do so. 21. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 is quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith, without break in service with full back wages and all other consequential benefits, with effect from the date of Ext.P3. No costs.