Allowed

Devassia P.J v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Feb 2008WP(C)/4545/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a writ petition challenging Government and Registrar orders on punishment proportionality. The court quashed conflicting orders and the society's adverse appeal decision, remanding the matter to the society to decide proportionality justly within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders P13 and P21 quashed regarding proportionality; Society's appeal order quashed; Matter remanded to society to decide on proportionality within two months.

Devassia P.J Vs State of Kerala — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 4545 of 2004(N) -------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

-------------------

¶8

DEVASSIA P.J., CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, (NOW UNDER ORDERS OF REVERSION AS ACCOUNTANT), MUKKAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,KOZHIKODE RESIDING AT PAIMBILLIL HOUSE, MUKKAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 602.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.), SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI, SRI.T.S.ARUNKUMAR.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

------------------------

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION (C), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOZHIKODE.

¶14

3. THE MUKKAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.T.1241, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

4. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MUKKAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.T.1241, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA, R3 & R4 BY ADV.SRI. V.G. ARUN, ADV.SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C). NO.4545/2004-N:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 19/03/2003 ISSUED BY R.3. TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 20/03/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R.3.

¶23

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 11/01/2002 ISSUED BY R.3. TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION SUB-COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO THE DECISION NO. VIII (2) DTD. 22/01/2001 TAKEN BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE MUKKAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK.

¶25

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DTD. 16/02/2002 ISSUED BY THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION SUB-COMMITTEE TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION COMMITTEE ON 28/02/2002.

¶27

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DTD. 29/07/2002 SUBMITTED BY THE CONVENOR OF THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION COMMITTEE OF R.3. BANK BEFORE SRI. S. CHANDRAN, DOMESTIC ENQUIRY OFFICER.

¶28

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION SUB-COMMITTEE DTD. 07/11/2002.

¶29

EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER IN PETITION NO. AEL/6090/2002 DTD. 21/11/2002 DTD. 21/11/2002 ISSUED BY R.2.

¶30

EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 21/11/2002 BY THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION SUB-COMMITTEE.

¶31

EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 14/11/2002 BY THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION SUB-COMMITTEE.

¶32

EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 24/02/2003 OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE R.3. BANK.

¶33

EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR NO. AEL/6090/2002/L. DIS. DTD. 22/05/2003.

¶34

EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR NO. AEL/6585/2002/L. DIS. DTD. 22/05/2003.

¶35

EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 5602/C3/03/CO-OP. DTD. 29/05/2003 ISSUED BY R.1.

¶36

W.P.(C). NO.4545/2004-N:

¶37

EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE G.O. (RT). NO. 412/2003/CO-OP. DTD. 26/07/2003 ISSUED BY R.1. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 8652/C3/03/CO-OP. DTD. 05/08/2003 BY R.1. EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 8653/C3/03/CO-OP. DTD. 05/08/2003 BY R.1. EXT.P.19: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO. 25614/2003 DTD. 01/10/2003.

¶38

EXT.P.20: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 15/11/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R.1.

¶39

EXT.P.21: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O. (RT). NO.37/2003/CO-OP. DTD. 13/01/2004 ISSUED BY R.1.

¶40

EXT.P.22: EXTRACT OF THE ORDER G.O. (P) 4/94/CO-OP. DTD. 07/01/1994 BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶41

EXT.P.23: EXTRACT OF THE ORDER G.O. (P) 47/2000/CO-OP. DTD. 22/03/2000 BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶42

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 08/05/2001.

¶44

EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 22/01/2002 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶45

EXT.R3.C: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 30/01/2002.

¶46

EXT.R3.D: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 04/09/2002.

¶47

EXT.R3.E: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE SECRETARY DTD. 26/05/2003.

¶48

EXT.R3.F: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR BY THE BANK DT. 28/02/2003.

¶49

EXT.R3.G: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 18/01/2002 BY THE SECRETARY.

¶50

EXT.R3.H: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DTD. JULY, 2003.

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

prv.

¶53

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶54

W.P(C).No.4545 OF 2004

¶55

¶56

Dated this the 13^th day of February, 2008

¶57

JUDGMENT

¶58

The petitioner, while working as Chief Accountant in the service of the third respondent, was charge-sheeted on certain alleged grounds of indiscipline. Following enquiry, the Sub committee decided against the petitioner. He filed an application under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 before the second respondent, who rescinded that decision, which, in turn, led the third respondent employer filing a revision before the Government leading to the issuance of Ext.P21. Ext.P13 decision of the Joint Registrar was one, whereby, he rescinded the decision of the Sub Committee, with punishment of demotion by two stages, to be imposed on the delinquent, the petitioner. The Government, in exercise of revisional power, have sustained the findings in enquiry, but held that Ext.P13 was merely a technical approach and that an employee cannot escape punishment on technical grounds, if he has been found guilty. Accordingly, the Government went into

¶59

WPC.4545/04

¶60

Page numbers

¶61

the proportionality of the punishment and held that demotion by one stage is sufficient. The petitioner challenges that decision to the extent it is against him.

¶62

However, it has to be noticed that after the Sub Committee decided the matter, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Committee of the society and the committee dismissed the same. That decision of the committee has not been subjected to any challenge before any of the authorities and has become final. Thus, there is a clear contradiction between the final decision of the society and the impugned action of the Government, in which, the decision of the Joint Registrar (Ext.P13) had merged.

¶63

I may also notice that when proceedings were pending before the Joint Registrar, the society had terminated the service of the petitioner on the ground of unauthorised absence. Ext.P14 was issued by the Joint Registrar directing the society to take back the petitioner into service. That has been given effect to and has become final.

¶64

WPC.4545/04

¶65

Page numbers

¶66

The aforesaid facts will show that as of now, the petitioner is serving the third respondent and is stated to be now working as Chief Accountant. With the passage of time, the subsequent conduct of the petitioner could also be considered by the employer. That apart, the decision on the question of imposing a punishment or the choice as to what shall be the punishment is not an exercise that can be undertaken by the Registrar under Rule 176 or by the Government sitting in revision against such proceedings. In the fitness of things, that is a matter best left to the wisdom of the society exercising that authority through the committee sitting in appeal. It was also noticed that the committee had concluded the appeal of the petitioner against its interest. The situation calls for appropriate orders to provide justice to the parties.

¶67

For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:

¶68

WPC.4545/04

¶69

Page numbers

¶70

(i) The impugned Exts.P13 and P21 are quashed in so far as they relate to the proportionality of punishment.

¶71

(ii) Ext.P12 decision of the committee of the society on the appeal of the petitioner against the decision of the Sub Committee is also quashed.

¶72

(iii) The committee of the society will take up the appeal of the petitioner and hear him as regards the proportionality of the punishment and issue appropriate orders as it deems fit. Let this be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶73

(iv) No costs.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge

¶76

kkb.

Devassia P.J v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devassia P.J v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.C.Sreelal Vs Mohan Abraham

K.v.Balachandran Vs State of Kerala

K.Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala

V.M.Nizar Vs Kerala Co.Op.Tribunal

Ponnamma George Vs Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribuna

Sreedevi Vs the Registrar of Co-Op.Societies & Ors.