Disposed

Raju v. the Assistant Registrar of

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2024WP/42597/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A milk society employee suspended in 2007 challenged the Tribunal's order restoring his suspension after no departmental enquiry or subsistence allowance followed. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and confirmed the Assistant Registrar's judgment directing payment of salary arrears.

What did the court decide?

KAT order dated 19.7.2014 set aside; first respondent's judgment confirming arrears of salary to petitioner upheld.

Raju Vs the Assistant Registrar of — Cooperative Societies | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.42597 OF 2014(S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJU S/O LATE HANUME GOWDA AGED 35 YEARS R/O YELIYURU VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT-571404

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.K L SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MANDYA SUB-DIVISION MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571404

¶13

2 . YELIYURU MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, YELIYURU VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT-571404 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

3 . THE PRESIDENT YELIYURU MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD YELIYURU VILLAGE

¶15

¶16

MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT-571404

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1; R2 & R3 SERVED)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, PASSED IN APPEAL NO.171/2010, DTD.19.7.2014 THE COPY OF THE ORDER IS PRODUCED AT ANNEX-F.

¶20

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The captioned petition is filed seeking for

¶23

issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 19.7.2014 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.171/2010, as per Annexure-“F”.

¶24

The facts of the case are as under:

¶25

The petitioner was appointed as a milk tester/helper by respondents No.2 and 3 on

¶26

¶27

31.03.1996. The petitioner was placed under

¶28

suspension by the management of respondent No.2 vide order dated 04.11.2007 on the charge of unauthorised absence and complaint received by its members. The petitioner raised the dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and questioned the suspension order. Respondent No.1 allowed the application and set aside the suspension order, which was challenged by respondent No.2 by preferring an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal(for short “KAT”) in Appeal No.171/2010. The KAT has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.2-Management vide order dated 19.07.2014 and the suspension order is restored.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner on the previous date though made a statement that post suspension, respondent No.2 has not appointed an

¶30

¶31

enquiry officer and no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated, this matter was adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to ascertain and seek instructions from the petitioner as to whether department proceedings are initiated. Today, on instructions, he has made a statement that, pursuant to suspension order, respondent No.2 has not initiated department enquiry against the petitioner. Respondents No.2 and 3 have not chosen to contest the captioned petition.

¶32

The case on hand depicts very sorry state of affairs. The petitioner who was working as a Healper in respondent No.2-Society was placed under suspension on 4.11.2007. Petitioner raised the dispute before respondent No.1 under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short “KCS Act”). The first respondent allowed the

¶33

¶34

dispute and set aside the suspension order as respondent 2 and 3 failed to contest the dispute.

¶35

Respondents 2 and 3 without paying subsistence allowance however questioned the order passed by respondent No.1 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.171/2010. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the suspension order cannot be the subject-matter of an appeal.

¶36

The counsel appearing for petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that respondents 2 and 3 having placed petitioner under suspension have not initiated any departmental enquiry till this date. Though disciplinary authority based on prima facie materials is entitled to place an employee under suspension, to justify their suspension order, they are

¶37

¶38

required to act promptly by issuing a charge sheet and

¶39

by holding an enquiry within a reasonable time.

¶40

The Apex Court in catena of judgments has

¶41

held that although suspension is not a punishment but, once a suspension is prolonged for an indefinite period, it amounts to punishment. The fact that respondents 2 and 3 have not chosen to contest the proceedings before this Court, an inference has to be drawn that suspension order was passed with an oblique motive. If a suspension order is perceived to lack authority, then this Court is compelled to exercise power of judicial review to examine the correctness of administrative action to prevent an abuse of administrative authority. The order of the appellate Tribunal in restoring the suspension order is liable to be set aside. The suspension order is of the year 2007 and we are in 2024. No departmental enquiry is initiated against the petitioner till this date.

¶42

¶43

The first respondent vide endorsement

¶44

dated 5.11.2008 has issued directions to respondents 2 and 3 to pay subsistence allowance. The endorsement also indicates that first respondentauthority has notified the consequences of not paying subsistence allowance to the petitioner.

¶45

If these significant details are looked into, this Court is of the view that the suspension order passed on 04.11.2007, is liable to be quashed by this Court as respondent No.2-Management, post suspension, has not appointed an enquiry officer and no enquiry proceedings are initiated against the petitioner. The suspension order cannot be kept in operation against the employee for a period of 16 years.

¶46

For the reasons stated supra, I pass the following:

¶47

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The order dated 19.7.2014 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.171/2010 is hereby set aside.

¶50

(ii) Consequently, the judgment passed by the first respondent-Assistant Registrar of CoOperative Societies, Mandya Sub-Division, Mandya, directing respondents 2 and 3 to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner is confirmed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

*alb/-

Raju v. the Assistant Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju v. the Assistant Registrar of

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

Mr Antoni D Cunha @ Danny Vs the State of Karnataka

Manappuram Finance Ltd., Vs the State of Karnataka

M N Subramanya Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

Umeshaiah Vs the Managing Director Kptcl

V Nagaraja Vs the Managing Director

Dr. Neema Gnanadev Vs Bangalore University