IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 34693 of 2003(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE EZHUKONE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.2935, EZHUKONE P.O., KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.), ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOLLAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTTARAKKARA. 4. K.S. DHARMARAJAN, `SAMASYA', KADAPPAKADA P.O., KOLLAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA, R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN, ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.34693/2003-E: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 284 DTD 13/01/2001. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 6762 DTD. 13/01/2001 OF THE SECRETARY OF THE BANK. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DTD. 27/01/2001 ISSUED TO THE R.4. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 12/02/2001 OF THE R.4. TO THE CHARGE SHEET. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 337 DTD 17/02/2001 OF THE COMMITTEE. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE EQNUIRY REPORT DTD. 11/03/2002 OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 54 DTD. 20/05/2002 OF THE BANK. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 622 DTD. 21/05/2002 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE R.4. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 22/05/2002 OF THE R.4. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 24/05/2002 TO THE R.4. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 799/02 DTD. 03/06/2002 OF THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 22/06/2002 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 11/07/2002 OF THE R.4. BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. 628/02 DTD. 26/07/2003 FROM THE R.3. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 12/08/2002 OF THE BANK TO THE R.3. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. W.P.(C). NO.34693/2003-E: EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. CRP (2)3708/02 DTD. 17/10/2002 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.19: COPY OF THE G.O. (RT). NO. 481/03/CO-OP. DTD. 26/08/2003. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION (MW1) K. SASI, SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE OF THE PETITIONER BANK. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF SARALA DEVI (MW2), CHIEF ACCOUNTANT OF THE PETITIONER BANK. EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF G. PRAKASH (MW3), ATTENDER OF THE PETITIONER BANK. //TRUE COPY// prv. 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.