Dismissed

Kasaba Primay Agriculture Credit Co. Operative Society Limited v. the Assistnat Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2025WP/17062/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a cooperative society challenging the reinstatement order of a dismissed employee. Upholding the Tribunal's decision, the Court held that the dismissal was invalid because the employee was not given a sufficient opportunity of hearing for a second charge sheet despite his absence from the initial notice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned orders of the ARCS and Tribunal confirmed.

Kasaba Primay Agriculture Credit Co… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1579 WP No. 17062 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.17062 OF 2024 (CS-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KASABA PRIMAY AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED HAVING OFFICE AT KASABA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK, MADDUR – 571 428. REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. REG. UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959.

¶9

PRESIDENT, KASABA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, HAVING OFFICE AT KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MADDUR – 571 428. ... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI ANUSHA NANDISH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MANDYA SUBJECT-DIVISION, MANDYA – 571 401.

¶14

SRI B. KRISHNA S/O. BOMMAIAH, MAJOR, KASABA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, MADDUR – 571 428. RESIDING AT R.R. RAMRAHIM NAGAR, 8^TH CROSS, MADDUR – 571 421.

¶15

(AMENDMENT CARRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 02/07/2024) ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI SIDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R-1; SRI N.R. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1579 WP No. 17062 of 2024

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 12.10.2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN COP.APPEAL NO.133/2021 THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-1 DATED 15.04.2021 IN DISPUTE NO.AR39/DDS/VYAJYA/11/2017-18 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner-Kasaba primary Agricultural

¶23

Cooperative Society Limited is before this court in this writ petition assailing the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘tribunal’ for short) in Appeal No.133/2021 dated 12.10.2022 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by respondent No.1 dated 15.04.2021 in dispute No.AR39/DDS/VYAJYA/11/2017-18.

¶24

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2

¶25

was employed as a clerk in the petitioner No.1- Society. On certain allegations of misconduct during the course of employment and service, charges were leveled against

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1579 WP No. 17062 of 2024

¶27

respondent No.2, notice was issued, and domestic enquiry was instituted. The respondent No.2 was kept under suspension with effect from 06.03.2017. The domestic enquiry was held and it was held that the charges leveled against respondent No.2 are proved and the domestic enquiry officer submitted the report dismissing respondent No.2 from service.

¶28

Respondent No.2 raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’) against the dismissal of the respondent No.2 on the ground that the domestic enquiry conducted was on violation of principles of natural justice as respondent No.2 was not heard while enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer.

¶29

The respondent No.1 allowed the dispute and

¶30

directed the petitioners to reinstate respondent No.2 to the original post. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the tribunal. The Tribunal by re-appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:1579 WP No. 17062 of 2024

¶33

order passed by the respondent No.1, aggrieved by which the petitioners are before this court in this writ petition.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.2 was issued notice by the enquiry officer to be present on a particular date, which clearly means that he was aware of the proceedings initiated by the petitioners and having being aware of the proceeding, he has willfully refrained himself from attending the proceedings of the enquiry officer, which resulted the enquiry officer to consider the material which was placed before him and pass an order against respondent No.2 holding that he was guilty of charges leveled against him.

¶36

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 vehemently contends that no proper notice as envisaged was issued to the respondent No.2 to

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1579 WP No. 17062 of 2024

¶38

be present before the domestic enquiry and the charges in the domestic enquiry were vague and were not proved even in the absence of respondent No.2, which aspect was rightly considered by the ARCS confirmed by the appellate tribunal and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶40

the parties, the point that arises for consideration is, “whether the impugned orders passed by the ARCS – respondent No.1 and the order passed by the Tribunal warrants any interference in the present facts and circumstances of this case?”

¶41

The domestic enquiry conducted by respondent No.1 – Society was on the basis of certain charges, which are as under:

¶42

"��- 1: �� .�� ! ��"�# $�"%��& � ' �()�� +� (�+ $�,� $-��".��/��0 1��-�� 2�3��4�� &"��5��, �+� (�+ 6��+� 7��5-�� %&)��0 $�*-�� "�# 8�� 9�!��:� � � 9�;��5-�!��-�.

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1579 WP No. 17062 of 2024

¶44

��- 2 �� .�� ! ��"�# $�"%��& � ' �()�� +� (�+ (�� <.=.>.�� (&?@ -�� 6�@�6�A ��B��C�! 4D��:14.02.2017 F�� 18.02.2017 ��G� ��B�� G�H�� I�J��!��& � F =�6�A �(K�?L 6��+�'�� 2��F�-�� "�# 8�� 9�!��& � F 9�;�5-�!��-�.

¶45

��- 3 �� .�� ! ��"�# $�"%��& � ' �()�� M6�� / N�H8� 2� $)( 26� �O6�� 6�A P�O:�)��0 $���:� $-��"Q<�'�� MR �� P�O:� $�-� �M6�� / 6�?-� (�� $)(��0 2@ ��D� ��,��& � F 9�;��5-�!��-�.

¶46

��- 4 �� .�� ! ��"�# $�"%��&�' �()�� G��;S� -�T� � � ��;�U �� ,� G��;S�� ¨Á§ÄÛ MV��0 �� W�:�G� $�B� �()�� J�� G��+�-�� F MV��0 ��6�A ��X�� ,<6��� vÁvÁÌ°PÀ ��X�� ,6��� �� Y"� ��Z6�A 6��V��!��& � F I�� G��;S� -�T� � � 10:26:26� ¨Á§ÄÛ MV 11,600 ��/��0 ��6�A 1��&<��54@ 9�;��-�!��:� � �.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:1579 WP No. 17062 of 2024

¶49

��- 5 �� .�� ! ��"�# $�"%��& � ' �()�� F)��0 ��X�� -�� [�8� ��G��+<� �� -�T� � � �O\�� %��:� $-��Q<�'�� O\�� %�-�� =8�W�B6�F�/ (�@� -�T� � � �O\�� %<6��/]@� 6��V��! ��F 4�� 2�^�� 98� _�" C�a�+G� 6��V��!��& � F 9�;��5-�!��-�.

¶50

��- 6 �� .�� ! ��"�# $�"%��& � ' �()�� `D�[� (�@� =8�W�B6�F�/b 4�< -�T� � ��/��0 �O\�� %��C�� c 6�/��* -�T� � ��/b -�T� � ��5� � �� 5��A \d&�C�! =�� -�T��$�� #:�#� ��*� ;�� F -�T� � ��/� �#:�#� e��' ��F ��;�U W�:�G� J�� ,�-�� "�# 8�� 9�! �f��6�A ��X�� ,<6��,��&�F.

¶51

�O(	-�T��	-�T��	��`D�[�	6��:�
��W�#	I��	�5��:�	��,-��	I�`�a
		-�T��	=�'	-�T��
		e��	-�T��
1	CQÌ	10166�.g	7536�.g	2636�.g
2	��!	1116�.g	806�.g	316�.g
3	��A��	616�.g	326�.g	296�.g

¶52

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1579 WP No. 17062 of 2024

¶53

4	2�5h	566�.g	476�.g	96�.g
5	I�� 6�/b	326�.g	506�.g	186�.g
6	i�j	706�.g	706�.g	--
	�?R
7	G��B	206�.g	--	206�.g

¶54

The enquiry proceedings initiated by the enquiry officer indicate that the respondent No.2 was issued with notice calling upon him to defend himself. The respondent No.2 remained absent on the said date of hearing. Further, the enquiry officer proceeded ahead and completed the enquiry without issuing further notice to respondent No.2 violating the principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer having violated the principles of natural justice of not affording the respondent No.2 a right of hearing, the domestic enquiry was set aside by the ARCS and the appeal preferred by the petitioners was allowed and was held that the respondent was not found guilty of charges of misappropriation or any of the charges, which were leveled against respondent No.2.

¶55

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1579 WP No. 17062 of 2024

¶56

The material on record indicates that only one

¶57

notice was issued to respondent No.2 to make his appearance before the enquiry officer. Further, the enquiry officer without issuing any further notice has passed an order of dismissal against respondent No.2 and holding the respondent No.2 guilty of charges of misappropriation. The charges leveled against the respondent No.2 is of misappropriation which is a grave charge and until the respondent No.2 would be heard after affording sufficient opportunity, the domestic enquiry officer could not have passed the impugned order. The ARCS and the Tribunal has rightly allowed the dispute filed by respondent No.2, which warrants no interference by this court and the point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this court pass the following:

¶58

O R D E R

¶59

(i) The writ petition is dismissed .

¶60

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1579 WP No. 17062 of 2024

¶61

(ii) The impugned orders dated 15.04.2021 and 12.10.2022 passed by respondent No.1 and the Tribunal stand confirmed.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶64

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Kasaba Primay Agriculture Credit Co. Operative Society Limited v. the Assistnat Registrar of Co. Operative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasaba Primay Agriculture Credit Co. Operative Society Limited v. the Assistnat Registrar of Co. Operative 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

Mr K M Nataraju Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Sridhar B S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Neelakantaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Gowrishankar. S Vs Karnataka State Law University

Sri.v.N. Channakrishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

C Veerabhadra Babu Vs the State of Karnataka