JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner Co-operative Bank seeking to quash Ext.P3 order passed by the 1st respondent by exercising the powers conferred to the Ombudsman under Section 69 A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, hereinafter called “the Act”, by which the petitioner was directed to return the fixed deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest to the 2nd respondent. 2. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus; the 2nd respondent, who was an employee of the petitioner bank has caused heavy loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.13,64,480/-, as evident from various statutory audit reports. Thereupon the 2nd respondent has executed Ext.P2 agreement in favour of the petitioner bank undertaking to indemnify the bank to the loss suffered consequent to his conduct and action in the day to today affairs of the bank. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner bank that since as per the audit, more than Rs.13,00,000/- was detected as the loss suffered by the bank consequent on the action of the 2nd respondent, as per Ext.P2 agreement, bank was at liberty to retain the fixed deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the adjustment of loss suffered by the bank. 3. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that since there arose a dispute with respect to the loss suffered by the bank, with the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent was not at liberty to approach the 1st respondent Ombudsman to resolve that dispute. That apart, the resolution of dispute by the Ombudsman was not legal and proper and therefore, Ext.P3 order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and illegality, is the contention. It is also contended that as per clause 13(f) of the Kerala Co-operative Ombudsman Scheme, hereinafter called “the Scheme”, such disputes are excluded from the purview of the powers conferred on the Ombudsman under Section 69A of the Act. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P3 order passed by the Ombudsman is without jurisdiction and therefore, illegal, irrational and void, without any validity in legal parlance. 4. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations in the writ petition and contending that, Ext.P3 order passed by the Ombudsman is in accordance with law. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P3 order passed by the Ombudsman is without jurisdiction and therefore, illegal, irrational and void, without any validity in legal parlance. 4. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations in the writ petition and contending that, Ext.P3 order passed by the Ombudsman is in accordance with law. That apart it is contended that as per Section 69(4) of the KCS Act, all monetary disputes mentioned in Schedule III to the Act shall be filed within the time limit specified in the said Schedule and the time prescribed for recovery of money is 3 years and therefore the period for filing the arbitration case is over on 20.11.2005. If the petitioner bank had any case that the bank has suffered loss and consequentially the bank was entitled to recover the amount from the 2nd respondent, the bank ought to have approached the arbitrator under Section 69 of the Act. Having not done so, the bank was negligent and bank did not take any steps to realize the amount if at all due in accordance with law. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, perused the pleadings and documents on record. Respective counsel have reiterated their contentions based on their pleadings. 6. The prime question to be considered is whether the Ombudsman is vested with power under Section 69A of the Act and the Scheme to consider the dispute by and between the bank and its employee namely, the 2nd respondent. True, under Section 69A, Ombudsman is provided with power for redressing all complaints relating to deficiency in banking or other services rendered by the Co-operative Societies dealing with banking business, in accordance with the terms of the Scheme. In order to regulate the functioning of the Ombudsman only, the scheme was brought into effect by the Government. Clause 7(2)(e) and 13(f) of the said scheme inhibiting the power of Ombudsman are relevant, which read thus: “7(2)(e)The complaint is in the nature of a dispute under Section 69 of the Act or in the nature of an appeal petition under Section 82 and 83 of the Act. 13(f) one requiring consideration of elaborate documentary and oral evidence and the proceedings before the Ombudsman or Ombudsmen, as the case may be, are not appropriate for adjudication of such complaint.” 7. 13(f) one requiring consideration of elaborate documentary and oral evidence and the proceedings before the Ombudsman or Ombudsmen, as the case may be, are not appropriate for adjudication of such complaint.” 7. Therefore, on a reading of said provisions of the Scheme, it is categoric and clear that whenever there is a dispute by and between the bank and its employees or its members the power of the Ombudsman under Section 69A and the Scheme is excluded. Going by the contentions in the writ petition, the counter affidavit and the documents, it is patent and clear that, there arose a dispute between the bank and the 2nd respondent, which necessitated the 2nd respondent to execute Ext.P2 agreement dated 28.3.2002 in favour of the petitioner bank undertaking to indemnify the bank if the bank has suffered a loss. The audit report drawn in favour of the bank, execution of the agreement and the undertaking made by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P2 are not in dispute. 8. The predominant contention raised by the counsel for the 2nd respondent is that the petitioner bank did not take any action under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act to resolve the dispute and therefore, after the period of 3 years, 2nd respondent was at liberty to approach the Ombudsman seeking to release the fixed deposit amount along with interest since there was a deficiency. However, I find from Ext.P3 order of the Ombudsman that the complaint is of the year 2013 and therefore, the period as provided under Section 69(4) for raising a claim for the money either by the respondent or the petitioner bank was not over. 9. Section 69 of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. Therefore, so far as the resolution of dispute concerning the matters enumerated thereunder, the arbitration court alone is vested with power under ordinary circumstances. The power of the arbitrator under Section 69 could be invoked either by the petitioner bank or the 2nd respondent. Petitioner has not chosen to invoke the said power. But merely because the petitioner bank was not careful enough to resort to Section 69 of the Act, the same will not preclude the 2nd respondent from seeking recovery of money by resorting to the said provision. The same is also not an enabling circumstance to the 2nd respondent to approach the 1st respondent. But merely because the petitioner bank was not careful enough to resort to Section 69 of the Act, the same will not preclude the 2nd respondent from seeking recovery of money by resorting to the said provision. The same is also not an enabling circumstance to the 2nd respondent to approach the 1st respondent. That apart the documents produced by the petitioner apart from Ext.P2 agreement shows that there was a serious dispute remaining with the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. 10. That apart clause 7(2)(e) of the Scheme precludes the Ombudsman from entertaining a complaint in the nature of dispute under Section 69 of the Act or in the nature of an appeal petition under Sections 82 and 83 of the Act. Moreover, as per clauses 13(b) and (f), the Ombudsman may reject the complaint if the complaint preferred is beyond the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman or if the complaint is requiring consideration of elaborate, documentary and oral evidence and proceeding before the Ombudsman or Ombudsmen as the case may be and are not appropriate for adjudication of such complaint. 11. Reckoning the facts, circumstances and the law involved as discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the Ombudsman did not have any power to entertain the complaint preferred by the 2nd respondent and therefore Ext.P3 order passed cannot be sustained under law. Same is passed by the 1st respondent without any authority of law and therefore the same suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and illegality. Resultantly, petitioner is entitled to succeed. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P3 order passed by the Ombudsman is quashed since the action of the Ombudsman is without jurisdiction. Since I have held that the action of the Ombudsman leading upto Ext.P3 order is without jurisdiction, the parties are at liberty to workout the remedies in accordance with law. Writ petition is allowed.