IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 34693 of 2003(E)
1. THE EZHUKONE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
4. K.SDHARMARAJAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.V.G.ARUN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :11/02/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.34693 OF 2003
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
The 4th respondent was placed under suspension and issued
with a show cause notice on allegations of financial irregularities
while in the service of the writ petitioner, a co-operative bank.
An enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the enquiry report, a
further show cause notice was issued. The Sub Committee has
considered the report and concluded that it is a case for
imposition of a major penalty and placed the same before the
Committee, which put the matter before the President, who was
the competent disciplinary authority to impose punishment on
the 4th respondent, who was then a senior clerk. The punishment
of dismissal from service was affirmed by the Committee in
appeal. The Registrar, however, in exercise of power under Rule
176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, rescinded
that imposition. That decision has been confirmed by the
WPC.34693/03
Page numbers
Government in appeal by the petitioner. Hence, this writ
petition by the employer.
2. At the outset, it has been noticed that the proceedings in
hand commenced before the coming into force of Act 1 of 2000
and therefore, it was not as if the Registrar did not have the
power. It has been concurrently found by the authorities below
that the Sub Committee which considered the enquiry report had
participated in the full Committee, which considered and heard
the appeal. The Government, however, concentrated much on
the question whether it was for the President or for the
Secretary to impose an order of suspension. But, when the
punishment has been imposed and the matter dealt with finally,
the question regarding the imposition of suspension did not
really continue to be available for consideration. But the fact
remains that the procedure in considering an appeal and the
procedure of imposition of punishment have been found against
by the statutory authorities. It is also pointed out that the 4th
respondent had a specific case that the enquiry officer, though
WPC.34693/03
Page numbers
an Advocate, had not provided adequate opportunity as enjoined
by law relating to domestic enquiry and that the enquiry report
was placed before the Sub Committee with dies loaded against
the petitioner, even as regards the punishment to be imposed. It
is argued by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that
when recommendations as to punishment is made by an
Advocate in his enquiry report, it cannot but be said that the
employer had acted on such recommendations, which was totally
away from the manner of disciplinary proceedings as enjoined by
law.
3. In the light of what is stated above, while it is beyond doubt
that the members of the Sub Committee had participated in the
hearing of the appeal of the 4th respondent, the contention of the
4th respondent that the enquiry was held without affording
sufficient opportunity of hearing to him has also to stand. The
quality of evidence adduced by the management during the
course of the enquiry also stands criticized, as unfair.
WPC.34693/03
Page numbers
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, after hearing learned
counsel for the parties, while sustaining the impugned orders
resulting in the cancellation of the dismissal of the 4th
respondent from service, it is ordered that the writ petitioner
will be entitled to take action de novo from the stage of the
commencement of enquiry proceedings, by appointing another
enquiry officer and concluding proceedings in accordance with
law. If such proceedings are contemplated, it shall be concluded
within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
kkb.