IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18067 of 2004(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MUVATTUPUZHA-KOTHAMANGALAM PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.4389, MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.M.V.BIPIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM. 4. SHRI.N.D.JOSEPH, NADUKUDIYIL HOUSE, KARUMPALAMATTOM, KARIMANNOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA , IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL FOR R4 SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.18067/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 31/05/2004 IN WPC NO.14842/2004 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P2 : COPY OF CHARGE MEMO ISSUED TO 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 31/05/1999 BY SUB COMMITTEE OF THE PETITIONER BANK. P3 : COPY OF EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY R4 BEFORE THE SUB COMMITTEE DATED 15/07/1999. P4 : COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY SUB COMMITTEE DATED 11/04/2000. P5 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUB COMMITTEE OF PETITIONER BANK DATED 27/04/2000. P6 : COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY DATED 28/07/2001. P7 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.EM/29717/02 DATED 16/10/2002. P8 : COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE R1 DATED 04/01/2003. P9 : COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1 DATED 06/01/2003. P10 : COPY OF ORDER NO.G.O.(RT.) 274/04/CO-OP. DATED 26/05/2004 ISSUED BY R1. P11 : COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY R1 BANK BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST EXT.R4(p). P12 : COPY OF HEARING NOTICE - EXT.P11 APPEAL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R4(a) : COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO NO.3056/98-99 DATED 01/12/1998 ISSUED TO R4. R4(b) : COPY OF SECOND MEMO OF CHARGE DATED 03/04/99. R4(c) : COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY R4 BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DATED 24/07/2000. R4(d) : COPY OF ORDER IN CMP NO.3007/2000 IN WA NO.2042/1999 DATED 21/07/2000. R4(e) : COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.101 DATED 16/10/1998. R4(f) :COPY OF LETTER DATED 21/12/1998. WPC NO.18067/2004 R4(g) : COPY OF PAPER REPORTS (DESHABHIMANI & MATHRUBHUMI DAILIES DATED 6TH AUGUST 1999) R4(h) : COPY OF REQUEST DATED 27/09/1997. R4(i) : COPY OF LETTER DATED 07/04/2000. R4(j) :COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 11/04/2000. R4(k) : COPY OF LETTER NO.V(2) 36813/01 DATED 10/03/2003. R4(l) : COPY OF THE DEBIT CREDIT ADVICE MEMO NO.18/9899 DATED 28/09/1998. R4(m) : COPY OF PREPARATION OF SERVICE BOOK, WORK ALLOTMENT DATED 05/12/1996. R4(n) : COPY OF ORDER NO.CLT(3)43232/93 DATED 01/07/94. R4(o) : COPY OF LETTER DATED 26/11/96. R4(p) : COPY OF ORDER NO.EM(4) 6924/2003 DATED 04/08/2003. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------- WP(C) No.18067 of 2004 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 18th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Co-operative Bank, which is challenging Ext.P10 order issued by the Government, whereunder, Government has set aside the punishment imposed by petitioner on 4th respondent confirmed by the Joint Registrar, and directed petitioner to re- consider minor punishment for 4th respondent. The 4th respondent while working as administrative officer of the Bank was given charge of branches also. He was charge sheeted for as many as 14 charges and a Sub Committee consisting of two board members was constituted to enquire into the charges. On enquiry 11 charges were found proved against 4th respondent and the Sub Committee, which conducted enquiry, imposed punishment of dismissal on 4th respondent. Against this, 4th respondent filed appeal to the Board which reduced the punishment to reversion to the post of Junior Supervisor. However on further petition filed before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Rule 176 of the Co- operative Societies Rules, the punishment was reduced to reversion to the post of Senior Supervisor. While 4th respondent filed petition WP(C) No.18067/2004 -2- before the Government under Section 83(1)(J) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, the petitioner Bank also filed a petition before the Government challenging the jurisdiction of 3rd respondent in interfering with the punishment imposed by petitioner on 4th respondent. Government vide Ext.P10 dismissed the petition filed by petitioner and allowed fourth respondent's petition by setting aside the orders of the Bank imposing punishment on 4th respondent with direction to the Bank to re-consider lesser punishment for minor lapses. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent. 3. The main contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that both the Joint Registrar as well as the Government has no authority to modify / reduce the punishment imposed on 4th respondent. So far as the authority of the Joint Registrar under Rule 176 is concerned, there are this Court decisions, either way one line of decisions holding that Joint Registrar cannot interfere with disciplinary proceedings and the other holding that Joint Registrar can interfere with disciplinary proceedings in appropriate cases. I do not think the Joint Registrar is totally helpless if the Bank decides to victimise an employee. If a punishment imposed is WP(C) No.18067/2004 -3- found to be far disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the misconduct then unless it is not interfered with, the same will affect the morale of the employees of the Society. I am of the view that though not as an appellate authority, the Joint Registrar has the authority to consider such cases and make corrections. It is seen that out of 14 charges, three were given up by the Bank itself. The major allegation against 4th respondent is that he has availed loan by wrongly declaring that he has no land or building of his own. However, it is seen from Ext.R4(e) that the Bank has confirmed the claim after 4th respondent remitted additional stamp duty for the inadequately stamped sale deed. The 4th respondent is said to have repaid the loan amount with interest. However, learned counsel for the Bank contended that wrong declaration itself is a misconduct and when it is committed by a senior level officer of the Bank, it does not deserve to be condoned. I do not think, there is any necessity to go into the details of each and every charges because the Government has considered all the charges and found that they are not serious enough warranting the punishment imposed on 4th respondent. I feel, the sub committee members who conducted enquiry were vindictive because the punishment of dismissal awarded by them to 4th respondent was not approved even by the WP(C) No.18067/2004 -4- Board of the Bank. The Joint Registrar noticed that the punishment imposed by the Bank itself is on the higher side because the proved misconducts are not such as to justify reduction in rank to the lowest stage. Since the Government has also not exonerated 4th respondent and the matter is remanded to the Board for their decision, I do not find any grievance for petitioner as such against Ext.P10 order. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the Government was not justified in suggesting punishment for minor misconduct because according to learned counsel misconduct proved are not very minor in nature. In fact by reducing the punishment at the first level of appeal itself, the Bank accepts the fact that the misconduct is not serious enough warranting dismissal of 4th respondent. When the matter reaches the Board again, there are certain additional circumstances in favour of 4th respondent because he has virtually suffered a punishment by being out of service for six years. However, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the Bank offered him employment pursuant to Joint Registrar’s order in 2002 but on account of litigation before the Government and in this Court, 4th respondent did not join duty and therefore the Bank cannot be blamed for the same. Since the matter was agitated and for the last four years it is pending in this WP(C) No.18067/2004 -5- Court at the instance of the Bank, I do not think 4th respondent can be blamed for not joining at the lower level. Decision by the Board of the Bank is also belated on account of the writ petition filed by the Bank in 2004. Therefore, the Bank should certainly take into account the past services of 4th respondent and the virtual punishment suffered by him by being out of service and the mental agony and other losses caused to him and then consider punishment based on the findings on enquiry and subsequent developments like repayment of loan, corrections made by the Bank itself to avoid loss on account of the lapses on the part of 4th respondent. Having regard to the nature of the misconduct proved, the Bank is directed to consider a light punishment and pass orders without any delay. The 4th respondent should be given a hearing before the Board of Directors before a decision is taken. Until decision is taken, the order of the Board of Director reinstating 4th respondent as Senior Supervisor will continue. The writ petition is disposed of. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg