JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner, while working as a Cashier in the services of the 1st respondent-Society, was placed under suspension on 07.07.2021 and period of the same was extended by it until 07.07.2022, as is permissible under Rule 198(6) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘KCS Rules for short). However, admittedly, the Society did not receive any sanction from the competent Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, granting permission to extend the period of suspension and they, consequently, did not issue any further orders to the petitioner after 06.07.2022. 2. While so, it transpires that the Society had approached the Joint Registrar for extension of the period of suspension of the petitioner through their letter dated 30.05.2022, which was considered by the said Authority only much later, culminating in Ext.P2 order dated 11.08.2022. 3. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 on the ground that the said order is impermissible, since it allows continuation of his suspension from 07.07.2022 on a retrospective basis; and therefore, rendering it liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard Sri. B.S. Swathi Kumar - learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. Amrutha Vidhyadharan - learned Standing Counsel for the Society and Smt. Parvathy K. - learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P2 was issued by the Joint Registrar in valid exercise of his Statutory powers under Rule 198(6) of the KCS Rules, but conceded that it was issued only on 11.08.2022. She explained that this was because of certain administrative contingencies and pressure of work of the said Authority, but argued that this would make no difference because, through it, he has allowed the Society to continue the petitioner under suspension from 07.07.2022. She, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 6. Smt. Amrutha Vidhyadharan - learned counsel for the Society, submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are very grave, including that he has misappropriated large amounts of money; and that he is now refusing to co-operate with the disciplinary action. She imputed that the petitioner has been seeking adjournments after adjournments during the enquiry and therefore, that the competent Authority has been incapacitated from concluding it. She imputed that the petitioner has been seeking adjournments after adjournments during the enquiry and therefore, that the competent Authority has been incapacitated from concluding it. She, however, admitted - when asked by this Court specifically - that no orders of suspension or continuation of suspension have been issued after 07.07.2022 until now, but sought liberty to her client to do so henceforth. 7. When I consider and analyse the afore rival submissions, it is clear that, whatever be the controversy now projected, the fact remains that the Society has not issued any order, either suspending or continuing the suspension of the petitioner, after 07.07.2022. They appear to have not done so, because they were aware that the Joint Registrar had not permitted continuation of suspension for over the one year period, but which has been done by the said Authority only on 11.08.2022, through Ext.P2, giving it retrospective effect from 07.07.2022. 8. Therefore, the question is whether Ext.P2 order could be found to be valid, to the extent to which it allowed retrospective continuation of suspension of the petitioner from 07.07.2022. 9. There are hardly any precedents covering the field, but, going by Rule 198(6) of the KCS Rules, it is perspicuous that such an order could not have been issued because a Society can continue an employee under suspension for more than a year, only with the prior sanction of the competent Authority. In this case, it is clear that the Joint Registrar did not give any such prior sanction, but issued Ext.P2 only on 11.08.2022, allowing the Society to continue the suspension of the petitioner from 07.07.2022. It is, therefore, without need to expatiate that this order cannot find favour in law. 10. That said, the further question is whether the petitioner can be again placed under suspension, the liberty for which has been requested by Smt. Amrutha Vidhyadharan. I do not propose to answer this either way in this judgment, taking note of the manner in which Rule 198(6) of the ‘KCS Rules’ is framed. Suffice to say, if the Society deems it necessary to place the petitioner under a fresh term of suspension, it will certainly be subject to all consequences as per law and to the contentions of the petitioner. However, as I have said, I deem it appropriate not to answer the contentions of either side on this issue, at this time. 11. However, as I have said, I deem it appropriate not to answer the contentions of either side on this issue, at this time. 11. In the afore circumstances, I order this Writ Petition with the following directions: (a) Ext.P2 will stand set aside, to the extent to which it allows continuation of suspension of the petitioner retrospectively from 07.07.2022. (b) The Society will be at liberty to initiate any action, as they may deem necessary, against the petitioner; however, clarifying that the rival contentions are left open. (c) I direct the Society to ensure that the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner is completed as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (d) As a necessary corollary, I order the petitioner to implicitly co-operate with the disciplinary enquiry, without seeking unnecessary adjournments; further leaving liberty to the Enquiry Officer to complete the said process, should the petitioner violate this, but recording it specifically in the resultant proceedings.