The court quashed an order quashing a dismissal of a bank employee for fraud. It dismissed the dismissal-related petition and denied leave to apply under Section 69 of the KCS Act.
Quashed the order of reinstatement; dismissed the employee's writ petition; refused leave to file proceedings under Section 69.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930
WP(C).No. 11592 of 2008(E)
PETITIONER(S):
RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.SANKU ACHARI, SASTHAVINGAL HOUSE, KAVIL WEST, LOKAMALESWARAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.K.J.NASARUL ASLAM
RESPONDENT(S):
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 15135 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX IN WPC.11592/08
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
/TRUE COPY/
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
W.P(C).Nos.11592 & 15135 OF 2008
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in W.P(C).11592/08 was an employee of the petitioner in W.P(C).15135/08, a co-operative society. The employer, after conducting an enquiry, dismissed the employee in question following allegations and issuance of memo of charges, which led to a finding that the employee had issued 19 appraisal certificates fraudulently while working as a Gold Appraiser in the bank. With the specific finding in Ext.P1 that the employee had colluded with the pawners and had committed fraud causing willful loss to it, the sub committee concluded that the employee had forfeited the confidence reposed on him and does not deserve employment in the bank. It is held that there is serious misconduct and on careful consideration, it was decided to dismiss him.
WPC.11592/08 & 15135/08
Page numbers
through his writ petition, seeks enforcement of that order. Exhibits are referred to in this judgment in the sequence in which it is placed in W.P(C).15135/08 barring one from W.P(C). 11592/08.
WPC.11592/08 & 15135/08
Page numbers
B. The sentence was to run concurrently. The employee carried an appeal and that was allowed by the court of session, Thrissur as per the judgment, which is Ext.P2 in W.P(C).11592/08. Having perused the said judgment, particularly para 13 and 14, to which learned counsel for the employee relied on, I do not find that the said judgment rendered by the court of session results in an honourable acquittal, that is, acquitting the employee of all blemish. All that was said was that in so far as the element of entrustment under Section 409 is concerned, the prosecution case did not establish that the petitioner had appropriated any material. All that the court of session did, going by para 13 of Ext.P2 in W.P(C).11592/08 was that, it disagreed with the finding of the court of first instance on the question of appreciation of evidence in so far as the learned Magistrate accepted the testimony of two employees of the bank who are also Gold Appraisers, while, in the view of the learned Sessions Judge, those persons, being employees of the bank, are not independent witnesses. It was, accordingly, viewed by the court of session that the materials objects should have been sent for
WPC.11592/08 & 15135/08
Page numbers
scientific investigation. I have serious reservations in the quality of that finding and I am not persuaded to take Ext.P2 in W.P(C). 11592/08 as a judgment by the sessions court acquitting the employee free of all blemish. As per Ext.P3 judgment, another complaint against the employee by the employer stood dismissed on grounds of inordinate delay.
WPC.11592/08 & 15135/08
Page numbers
further avail other remedies. Before the Assistant Registrar, the employer made Ext.P6 objections to Ext.P4, but that matter just left at that stage.
WPC.11592/08 & 15135/08
Page numbers
unreasonable. The said order is cryptic. Not only that, the same is in excess of jurisdiction under Rule 176, more so because Ext.P5 judgment relegates the petitioner, if at all, to proceedings under Section 69 of the KCS Act.
On pronouncing this judgment, learned counsel for the employee sought leave to move proceedings for relief under Section 69 of the KCS Act. With the aforesaid sequence of events and with the passage of time, leave as sought for is hereby specifically refused.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge.
kkb.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order reinstating a dismissed bank employee with backwages without reasoning is unsustainable.
Whether the employee can approach the Joint Registrar after the lower court refused leave under Section 69 of the KCS Act.
Whether the order under Rule 176 is in excess of jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prakasini v. Joint RegistrarFollowed¶44
Prakasini v. Joint Registrar [2006 (1) KLT 199]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.SANKU ACHARI
TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
