Dismissed

Tumakuru Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha v. the Deputy Registrar of Co. Op Societies

Karnataka HC21 Dec 2023WP/17194/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by a bank to quash an order dismissing an employee and an award of reinstatement. The Court found that the Tribunal and Deputy Registrar adequately appreciated evidence regarding procedural lapses, denial of legal assistance, and lack of proof of misconduct, leaving no ground for interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as being devoid of merit; Petitioner directed to comply with the reinstatement order dated 31.3.2016.

Tumakuru Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:46888 WP No. 17194 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 17194 OF 2017 (CS-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

TUMAKURU PATTANA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA

¶8

JAYA CHAMARAJENDRA ROAD TUMAKURU-572101 REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶9

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶10

PRESIDENT

¶11

TUMAKURU PATTANA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA

¶12

JAYA CHAMARAJENDRA ROAD TUMAKURU-572101

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. S V PRAKASH., ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO -OP SOCIETIES TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU, SECOND FLOOR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMAKURU-572101

¶18

R MAMATHA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SUPREETHI STORES HORAPET CIRCLE TUMAKURU-572101

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:46888 WP No. 17194 of 2017

¶20

3. D T KEMPAIAH

¶21

RETIRED ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ENQUIRY OFFICER C/O ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE TUMAKURU PATTANA SAHAKARA BANK LTD., J C ROAD TUMAKURU-572101

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT AZRA J DUNDGE, AGA FOR R1 SRI NAGARAJU S JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 12.02.2018)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.3.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO.91/2016 AT ANNEX-M AND THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.3.2016 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, TUMAKURU (R-1) IN DISPUTE AT ANNEX-K AND PRAYES FOR OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The present writ petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 31.3.2017 passed in Appeal No.91/2016 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru¹ and the award dated 31.3.2016 passed in DRT/Misc./01/2015-16 by the first respondent – Deputy Registrar.

¶28

1 ‘the Tribunal’ for short

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46888 WP No. 17194 of 2017

¶30

The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present petition are that the second respondent² was appointed on 1.1.1994 as a Second Division Assistant with the first petitioner³ . From 1.3.1996 she was placed as in-charge Accountant and her appointment as Accountant was confirmed w.e.f., 8.12.2006. She was placed as in-charge Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the bank on 12.9.2013. Alleging various misconducts, the bank vide order dated 30.6.2014 placed the employee under suspension and thereafter, by order dated 1.9.2014 disciplinary enquiry proceedings were initiated and a retired Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies was appointed as the enquiry officer and the in-charge CEO was appointed as the Presiding Officer.

¶31

It is the case of the bank that a notice was issued to the employee and since no explanation was received, by order dated 22.2.2015 the employee was dismissed from the services of the bank. Being aggrieved, the employee raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative

¶32

2 ‘the employee’ for short

¶33

3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the bank’

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:46888 WP No. 17194 of 2017

¶36

Societies Act, 1959⁴ . The bank entered appearance in the said proceedings and contested the same. Vide order dated 31.3.2016 the first respondent allowed the dispute and set aside the dismissal of the employee. Being aggrieved, the bank preferred Appeal No.91/2016 before the Tribunal. The employee entered appearance before the Tribunal and contested the same. By judgment dated 31.3.2017 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed.

¶37

It is contended on behalf of the bank that the sole ground on which the first respondent as well as the Tribunal have set aside the order of dismissal was that no adequate opportunity was given to the employee in the enquiry. It is further stated that the employee did not appear before the enquiry officer on various occasions and despite adequate opportunity having been granted, the employee did not appear and contest the enquiry proceedings. That the employee has alleged bias against the enquiry officer and hence, the order of dismissal was set aside. However, there was no basis for the allegation of bias. It is further contended that the charges

¶38

4 ‘the Act’ for short

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46888 WP No. 17194 of 2017

¶40

alleged against the employee are serious in nature and the order of the first respondent and judgment of the Tribunal being erroneous, are liable to be set aside.

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel for the employee submits that the Rules of the Bank provided a discretion to the enquiry officer with regard to affording assistance to the delinquent employee during the process of enquiry either through a legal practitioner or otherwise and in the present case despite a request being made for the same, without affording any reason, the request made by the employee was rejected. It is further contended that the first respondent having adequately appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and the same having been adequately reappreciated by the Tribunal, the said order and judgment are not liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present writ petition.

¶42

The submissions made by both the learned counsel have been considered and the material on record has been perused. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the order dated 31.3.2016 passed by the first respondent and

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:46888 WP No. 17194 of 2017

¶44

the judgment dated 31.3.2017 passed by the Tribunal are liable to be interfered with?

¶45

It is forthcoming from a perusal of the order sheet of the enquiry which has been furnished by the bank vide IA No.1/2018 filed for production of additional documents, that the employee had entered appearance on the first date of enquiry i.e., on 21.10.2014 before the enquiry officer and made a request for legal assistance in the enquiry which was summarily rejected. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing i.e., 3.11.2014, the employee was present and the matter was adjourned to 14.11.2014. On the said date, it is forthcoming from the endorsement made in the order sheet that all the records sought for by the employee have not been furnished and the employee has specifically made an endorsement to the effect as to which documents were furnished and which documents were not furnished. Thereafter, it is forthcoming from the proceedings dated 24.11.2014 it is recorded that the employee has refused to receive the documents that have been sought to be furnished.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:46888 WP No. 17194 of 2017

¶48

It is also noticed from the order sheet that the proceedings in the enquiry have been adjourned on various dates and the said dates are fixed in very short durations i.e., 24.11.2014, 27.11.2014, 1.12.2014, 2.12.2014, 3.12.2014, 4.12.2014, 6.12.2014, 9.12.2014, 10.12.2014, 11.12.2014, 16.12.2014, 17.12.2014, 18.12.2014, 19.12.2014 and 22.12.2014. It is also necessary to note that the employee has made allegations of bias against the enquiry officer and has made a request to the bank for change of the enquiry officer. It is further relevant to note that the first respondent has recorded a categorical finding that there is no allegation made against the employee that there has been any misappropriation. Further, the learned counsel for the employee referring to various portions of the report of the enquiry officer submits that various findings have been recorded wherein, the enquiry officer has directed that the loss caused to the bank is required to be recovered from the employee and various other observations, which are beyond the scope of the enquiry has been made.

¶49

It is further relevant to note that Regulation 5.6(10) of the Bank Employees Model Service Regulations specifically

¶50

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:46888 WP No. 17194 of 2017

¶51

stipulates that an employee is entitled to seek for appointment of an Advocate or a co-employee to assist in the enquiry and the said application was required to be considered in terms of the said Regulations. However, it is forthcoming from the order dated 21.10.2014 that the request for legal assistance has been summarily rejected by the enquiry officer without even reference to the reasons for seeking of the same and the entitlement of the employee under the Regulations to seek for such assistance.

¶52

It is forthcoming from the order of the first respondent that the factual aspect has been adequately appreciated and the first Respondent has recorded a finding that the denial of legal representation pursuant to the request made by the employee was not just and proper. The request made by the employee for change of the enquiry officer was also noticed as also the fact that there was no allegation of misappropriation made against the employee. The first Respondent upon an appreciation of the relevant material on record has recorded a finding that the dismissal of the employee was erroneous and set aside the same and ordered for reinstatement of the said employee.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:46888 WP No. 17194 of 2017

¶55

It is further forthcoming that the Tribunal after a reappreciation of the material on record has recorded a categorical finding that the rejection of the request made by the employee for necessary documents was not proper and that the finding of the first respondent that the alleged charges are not proved beyond reasonable doubt is just and proper. It is further noticed by the Tribunal that the bank has not followed the statutory provision contained in Service Rules ie., Rule 6 stipulating that prior to the employee being suspended she was not notified of the charges and there has been violation of the Rules of the bank.

¶56

It is forthcoming from the aforementioned that

¶57

despite a request made by the employee to change the enquiry officer complaining bias against him, no action has been taken on the same. The manner in which the enquiry proceedings were conducted gives further credence to the allegation of bias made by the employee. Although no finding is required to be recorded with regard to the allegation of bias, it is required to be noted the manner in which the enquiry was conducted and request made by the employee for production of sufficient documents has not been considered adequately by the enquiry

¶58

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:46888 WP No. 17194 of 2017

¶59

officer. Further, it is relevant to note that the first respondent has recorded a categorical finding that there is no misappropriation by the employee. The bank has failed in demonstrating that the evidence on record points to any misappropriation that has been committed by the employee. In the absence of any proof of misappropriation against the employee, the drastic action of removal from service of the employee by the bank cannot be in any manner be justified.

¶60

Further, it is forthcoming that the first respondent has adequately appreciated the material on record and by order dated 31.3.2016 has set aside the order of dismissal dated 20/22.2.2015 and ordered for reinstatement of the employee to the services of the bank and has further ordered for payment of salary and other employment benefits from 1.7.2014. The Tribunal upon a re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record has affirmed the finding recorded by the first respondent.

¶61

Having regard to the aforementioned, the matter having been adequately appreciated by the first respondent and re-appreciated by the Tribunal, the bank has failed in

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC:46888 WP No. 17194 of 2017

¶63

11 -

¶64

demonstrating that the same warrants interference by this Court in exercise of is extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶65

In view of the aforementioned, the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶66

The petitioners shall forthwith comply with the order dated 31.3.2016 passed by the first respondent in No.DRT/Misc./01/2015-16.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Tumakuru Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha v. the Deputy Registrar of Co. Op Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tumakuru Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha v. the Deputy Registrar of Co. Op Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Fanuc India Private Limited Vs M/S Evergreen Machine Tool and Automation Pvt. Ltd.

Shri Shriram Joshi Vs M/S Sycone Cpmc Private Limited

The Hassan District Central Co. -Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Smt Radha Vs Chief Secretary

M/S Kallamundkur Vyvasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha Vs the State of Karnataka

Yedapadavu Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha Vs the State of Karnataka