Dismissed

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

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2023WP/31532/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the reinstatement orders of a bank employee. The court held that concurrent findings by the Joint Registrar and Appellate Tribunal were supported by evidence showing resignation was improperly accepted without Board approval, and retirement benefits were not settled.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Hassan District Central Co. -Operative Bank Ltd… — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.31532 OF 2019 (CS-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

1 . THE HASSAN DISTRICT CENTRAL CO -OPERATIVE BANK LTD (HDCC BANK ) B M ROAD, HASSAN,

¶8

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶9

HASSAN - 573201

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (JRCS) MYSORE REGION

¶14

PALACE BUILDING

¶15

MYSORE – 570001

¶16

2 . SMT K P GIRIJAMMA W/O LATE T L NAGARAJ THERANYA VILLAGE AND POST, HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK

¶17

HASSAN – 573211

¶18

3 . THE MANAGER

¶19

THE HASSAN DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD

¶20

B M ROAD, HASSAN - 573201

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 SRI D P SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CH-6), BANGALORE IN COP APPEAL NO.980/2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-A WHICH AFFIRMED THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2007 PASSED BY THE R-1 - JRCS IN DISPUTE AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.12.2023 COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

¶28

7.3.2019 passed in Appeal No.980/2007 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore¹ as well as the order dated 21.8.2007 passed by the first respondent.

¶29

The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present petition are that the husband of the second respondent one T.L.Nagaraj² was working as a Junior Assistant in the third respondent branch of the petitioner – bank since 1999.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner – bank that the employee faced disciplinary proceedings and consequent to an enquiry, the report of the enquiry was accepted by the Board. That apart, the employee being unauthorisedly absent, he was also found guilty of misappropriation of funds and when stringent

¶31

1 ‘the Tribunal’ for short

¶32

2 ‘the employee’ for short

¶33

¶34

punitive action was being contemplated, he voluntarily tendered his resignation to the Managing Director of the petitioner – bank on 3.8.2002. That the resignation tendered was accepted on 5.8.2022 and the employee was communicated with the acceptance of his resignation on 14.8.2022 and it was communicated that he was relieved from duty on 5.8.2022.

¶35

It is the assertion of the petitioner that the retirement benefits of the employee were also settled. Being aggrieved by his removal from service, the employee raised a dispute before the first respondent. The bank entered appearance in the said proceedings and contested the same. By order dated 21.8.2007, the dispute was allowed and the employee was ordered to be re-instated into service. Being aggrieved, the bank preferred Appeal No.980/2007 before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, the employee died and his wife, the second respondent herein being his legal representative was brought on record. The appeal was dismissed for non prosecution on 3.4.2009 which was restored consequent to the order dated 5.2.2018 passed in WP.No.17155/2014. Consequently, the Tribunal, after hearing the matter on merits, dismissed the appeal

¶36

¶37

filed by the bank. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the employee had voluntarily given his resignation and as is forthcoming from the record, the retirement benefits of the employee also have been settled, which was accepted by the employee and thereafter, after lapse of more than 3 years, he has raised a dispute before the first respondent and that the first respondent erred in allowing the dispute. That the Tribunal also erroneously confirmed the order passed by the first respondent. An affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner – bank on 7.12.2023 placing on record the details of the manner in which the retirement benefits of the employee were settled. Hence, the learned counsel seeks for allowing of the writ petition and grating the reliefs sought for.

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the employee had categorically alleged that his signature on the resignation was obtained by force and threat after being illegally confined and hence, the employee was justified in challenging the same. It is further submitted that the

¶40

¶41

circumstances under which the said resignation has been made has been adequately appreciated by the first respondent and reappreciated by the Tribunal and the same ought not to be interfered with by this Court in the present writ petition. With regard to the contention that the retirement benefits were settled, the counsel for the second respondent submits that there is no document placed on record that any amount was paid to the employee with respect to the retirement benefits and hence, the contention of the petitioner – bank with regard to settling the retirement benefits is liable to be rejected.

¶42

The submissions on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the material on record has been perused. The question that arises for consideration is, Whether the order dated 21.8.2007 passed by the first respondent and the order dated 7.3.2019 passed by the Tribunal, are required to be interfered with?

¶43

The fact that the employee was in the employment of the petitioner – bank is undisputed. It is the assertion of the petitioner that the employee had unauthorisedly absented himself between 1999 and 2001, for which, he was imposed with the

¶44

¶45

penalty for misconduct. It is the further assertion of the petitioner that the employee was also found guilty of misappropriation of funds on the basis of a domestic enquiry held and hence, the employee voluntarily tendered his resignation to the Managing Director of the petitioner-bank.

¶46

It is forthcoming that the employee challenged his removal from service contending, inter alia that he was illegally detained and by using force and threat his signature was obtained and the same was treated as his resignation and he was forcibly removed from the post of Junior Assistant.

¶47

The bank contested the proceedings before the Joint Registrar, who, upon appreciation of the material on record, noticed that the bank did not produce any document to demonstrate the allegation of misappropriation. It is further noticed that the employee had lodged a police complaint in Crime No.247/2002. That the enquiry which was conducted was only with regard to the employee unauthorisedly absenting himself. A finding was also recorded that no evidence is produced to demonstrate the claim that he voluntarily resigned.

¶48

¶49

Vide order dated 21.08.2007, the Joint Registrar directed the employee to be reinstated into service. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal No.980/2007. During the pendency of the appeal, the employee died and his wife was brought on record as his legal representative who has contested the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

¶50

The Appellate Tribunal, upon a re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record has affirmed the findings recorded by the Joint Registrar.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the employee had voluntarily handed over his resignation and the same was accepted and his terminal benefits were settled. The petitioner - bank has also filed an affidavit on 7.12.2023 placing on record that the employee was not entitled for gratuity and had availed all the leave benefits and hence, was not eligible for leave encashment benefit. It is further deposed that at the time of joining the services of the bank, the employee had deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of security deposit and the employee having availed consumer durable loan from the bank, such security deposit was adjusted soon after acceptance of

¶52

¶53

his resignation towards the loan amount and that all adjustments were intimated by communication dated 14.8.2002.

¶54

It is clear and forthcoming from the said affidavit that no retirement benefits were paid to the employee or were remitted to his bank account. The details furnished by the bank including the affidavit dated 7.12.2023 clearly demonstrates that the details of the consumer durable loan which the petitioner alleges was adjusted to the deposit amount has also not been furnished inasmuch as the quantum of loan availed, the amount due and outstanding in respect of the said loan and the quantum of retirement benefits which have allegedly been adjusted towards the said loan have not been furnished. There is no material placed on record to demonstrate that the intimation in writing with regard to adjustment of retirement benefits has been received by the employee. In view of the aforementioned, the contention putforth by the bank that the terminal benefits of the employee were settled and were within the knowledge of the employee is ex-facie untenable and liable to be rejected.

¶55

The Joint Registrar, upon an appreciation of the material on record has recorded a finding that as per Rule 45 of

¶56

¶57

the Bye-laws of the Society, the Board was require to take a decision with regard to the removal of service of the employee and erroneously it is the Managing Director who has accepted the resignation of the employee without the Board taking a decision with regard to the same. That the enquiry has been conducted by the Petitioner only with regard to the allegation regarding unauthorized absence and not with regard to misappropriation. That the discussion in the Board of the Society was with regard to the enquiry conducted against the employee regarding unauthorized absence and there was no discussion regarding any allegations made in respect of the alleged misappropriation by the employee. That the Society with undue haste has accepted the resignation of the employee.

¶58

The Tribunal, upon on re-appreciation of the material

¶59

on record has also recorded a finding that the Managing Director has erroneously accepted the resignation of the employee without a decision being taken in the Board in that regard. Further, the Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the enquiry has been conducted only with regard to the aspect regarding unauthorised absence and not with regard to the allegations regarding misappropriation.

¶60

¶61

17. The Petitioner has failed in demonstrating that the

¶62

concurrent findings recorded in the order of the first respondent dated 21.8.2007 and the order of the Tribunal dated 7.3.2019 are in any manner erroneous or contrary to any specific material available on record to warrant interference in the same by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction contained under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶63

In view of the aforementioned, the present Writ

¶64

Petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

nd/BS

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Purushothama H H Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Raghavendra Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Devaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

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

M/S Zuari Infraworld India Limited Vs M/S Mandya National Paper Mills