Remanded

The Secretary, Nagalassery Service Co-Op v. M.N.Surendran & Another

Kerala HC28 Oct 2016WP(C)/35185/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court interpreted Rule 198(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, holding that the President alone has authority to impose dismissal. Since the Sub-Committee lacked jurisdiction, the Court quashed the dismissal and Co-operative Tribunal affirming the award. The matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority with strict timelines for fresh inquiry, requiring the respondent's cooperat

What did the court decide?

Exts.P8 and P10 set aside. Remitted to disciplinary authority for fresh enquiry within 4 months. Respondent to cooperate.

The Secretary, Nagalassery Service Co-Op Vs… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/6TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 35185 of 2010 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. THE SECRETARY, NAGALASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.P541, KUTTANAD.P.O., PALAKKAD DIST.

¶8

2. THE PRESIDENT, NAGALASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.P541, KUTTANAD P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

¶10

SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SMT.N.SANTHA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. M.N.SURENDRAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, MALAPPURATH HOUSE, NAGALASSERY P.O., (VIA) KOOTTANAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-695 001.

¶13

2. THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

WP(C).No. 35185 of 2010 (W)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD.15.9.2003.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.20.7.2006 IN WPC.NO.35704/2003 A OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ARC 44/2006 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN ARC NO.44/2006 BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶25

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN ARC NO.44/2006 BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶26

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATE,EMT OM ARC 44/2006 BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶27

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DTD.23.5.2008 BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶28

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.AP59/2008 BEFORE THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶29

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.29.9.2010 BEFORE THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

msv/

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.35185 of 2010

¶37

Dated this the 28^th day of October, 2016

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The Secretary of Nagalassery Service Co-operative Bank and its President have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P8 award of the Co-operative Arbitration Court directing re-instatement of the first respondent, after setting aside the disciplinary action initiated against him and Ext.P10 judgment of the Co-operative Tribunal confirming the award.

¶40

The first respondent was appointed as Attender in the Bank on 1.11.1993. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings during his service, many times. It is stated that at one instance, there was misappropriation of a sum of Rs.4,513/- (Rupees Four thousand five hundred and thirteen only), when he was posted in fertilizer depot; thereafter another instance on 16.6.1995 while selling fertilizer without bill, when he misappropriated a sum of Rs.6,774/- (Rupees Six thousand seven hundred and seventy four only) and thereafter on 8.10.1997, another instance of misappropriation of Rs.3,300/- (Rupees three thousand three hundred only) which was entrusted to him to pay the electricity charges. It is stated that on each occasions, either he admitted the misconduct and assured not to repeat or otherwise he

¶41

W.P.(C) No.35185 of 2010

¶42

:2:

¶43

was pardoned or warned. Thereafter from 9.10.1997 onwards he absented himself submitting application for leave on medical grounds for the period from 9.10.1997 to 22.10.1997. Petitioners' case is that even though application was stated to be on medical ground, it was not supported by proper medical certificates. However, he continued to be absent initially by submitting applications and thereafter he stopped submission of applications. In none of the applications or otherwise, the 1^st respondent furnished the address for communication. The Bank issued several notices from 28.5.1998 onwards directing him to report for duty; registered notices sent to him in his house address and all those letters sent to him, were returned undelivered. Since the letters issued to him were returned, a notice was published in the Deshabhimani daily on 1.7.2003 asking him to show cause for his unauthorised absence from 9.10.1997 onwards and against the misappropriation of money as per Ext.P1 memo of charges. In Ext.P1 memo of charges, it was alleged that petitioner committed very serious misconduct by absenting himself from duty from 9.10.1997 onwards, misappropriating the sum of Rs.3,300/- (Rupees Three thousand three hundred only) entrusted to him for remitting electricity charges; submitting incomplete applications for leave; refusing to accept the letters sent from the bank; refusing to furnish the address

¶44

W.P.(C) No.35185 of 2010

¶45

:3:

¶46

on leave etc.

¶47

The case of the Bank is that he did not turn up even after publication of Ext.P1 memo of charges. However, it is stated that the first respondent had sent a letter to the Bank without showing any address. Thereupon the Bank constituted a sub committee to enquire into the allegations contained in Ext.P1. Notice issued to the fist respondent in his available address, directing him to appear for the inquiry was returned unclaimed. Another notice issued by registered post was returned by the postal authority with the endorsement “addressee abroad”. In Ext.P2 inquiry report the first respondent was found guilty of the charges. On the basis of the enquiry report Ext.P2 dated 15.9.2003, the disciplinary sub committee decided to dismiss the first respondent as per its decision dated 29.9.2003; with effect from 29.9.2003.

¶48

At the stage, the first respondent approached this court challenging the proceedings against him by filing WP(C) No.35704/2003 and by Ext.P3 judgment, this court directed the first respondent to file ARC within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment observing that the question of limitation shall be considered by the Arbitration Court. The first respondent thereupon filed Ext.P4, ARC No.44 of 2006, through a Power of Attorney.

¶49

W.P.(C) No.35185 of 2010

¶50

:4:

¶51

According to him, the decision to dismiss him was taken without complying with the provisions of natural justice and without issuing any notice or intimation and therefore he challenged the disciplinary proceedings including the memo of charge dated 30.6.2003 and the notification in the newspaper dated 1.7.2005 and sought for direction to reinstate him with all benefits including the salary for the period during which he was denied employment. According to him, he applied for leave for the purpose of treatment for the period from 8.9.1997 and thereafter he continued to submit applications which the Bank had received. According to the petitioners, the ARC itself was filed 16 days after the period stipulated by this court and apart from the fact that there was culpable delay in filing the same; more over, the first respondent could not have been allowed to pursue his case through a power of attorney holder. It is the case of the petitioners that the first respondent was employed abroad and he never furnished the address, while he was submitting applications for leave on any time thereafter. The Bank filed written statement Ext.P7 disputing the contentions raised by the first respondent stating that he had committed misconduct not only by absenting himself from duty but also by not intimating the address while he was on leave as provided in rule 190(6) of the Co-operative Societies Rules. The postal

¶52

:5:

¶53

W.P.(C) No.35185 of 2010

¶54

endorsements show that the first respondent was abroad; none of the notices sent from the Bank or by the inquiry officer could be served on the 1^st respondent. The disciplinary sub committee was ready to afford every opportunity to the delinquent to defend his case ensuring his effective participation. But since he chose to keep himself away, deliberately, without furnishing address for communication, the committee thereupon conducted the inquiry ex-parte and found him guilty of the charges i.e he had misappropriated the Bank's money and abstained from duty without furnishing the address.

¶55

The Arbitrator found that even though attempt was made for serving notice on the delinquent; the 1^st respondent had submitted applications for leave regularly, notice was not issued before the commencement of enquiry; there was no proper notice to the 1^st respondent before taking a decision regarding punishment and the enquiry report was not attempted to be served on the 1^st respondent before the sub committee took a decision to dismiss the first respondent. Further it was found that the punishment of dismissal was to be imposed by the President and not the committee, since Rule 198 (3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules provides that the authority to impose punishment of dismissal is the President; punishment imposed by sub committee was without authority. There

¶56

W.P.(C) No.35185 of 2010

¶57

:6:

¶58

was specific violation of rule 198 (3) even in framing charges against the first respondent. Accordingly, by Ext.P8 award the Arbitration Court set aside the punishment and directed reinstatement without back wages. The memo of charges as well as paper publication and all subsequent proceedings were set aside.

¶59

The petitioners filed Ext.P9 appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal and by Ext.P10 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal affirming the award giving liberty to the petitioners to conduct fresh enquiry. This writ petition is filed at this stage.

¶60

According to the petitioners punishment was awarded by the sub committee which is an authority superior to the appointing authority, the President, and therefore no prejudice was caused to the first respondent. Similarly with respect to the findings regarding the compliance of natural justice, it was stated that the first respondent himself, by way of abstaining himself from duty and by refusing to furnish his address made it impossible for the Bank to serve notice on him. In these circumstances, all necessary steps were taken to see that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with rules; but in his absence the inquiry had to be proceeded with setting him exparte. The decision was taken to dismiss the petitioner seeing that charges were found proved whereby the 1^st respondent was found to have

¶61

W.P.(C) No.35185 of 2010

¶62

:7:

¶63

committed grave misconduct.

¶64

The learned counsel for the first respondent pointed out that there was serious infirmity in the enquiry conducted. The first respondent had submitted applications for leave from time to time and none of them was rejected. Even though the first respondent was remaining absent from 1997 onwards the bank took action only in the year 2003 and immediately on seeing Ext.P1 publication regarding memo of charges he had approached the Joint Registrar as well as the Bank against the proposed proceedings filing applications dated 5.7.2003 and 7.7.2003. It is also pointed out that the enquiry officer did not conduct proper enquiry consistent with the principles of natural justice. Before commencing the inquiry, notice should have been published in newspaper, if at all the notice could not be served in his house address. Similarly the enquiry report ought to have been furnished to him before the punishment was awarded. It was also stated that under rule 198(3) the authority to impose punishment of dismissal of an Attender is President and therefore the punishment imposed by the sub committee is null and void. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this court reported in Ajayakumar K.R. V. State of Kerala and others [2015 KHC 7025] .

¶65

At the same time the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶66

:8:

¶67

W.P.(C) No.35185 of 2010

¶68

relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Chairman, A.P.State Electricity Board and others vs. M.Kurmi Naidu [2006 (8) SCC 62] and argued that as long as the punishment is imposed by a higher authority then the punishment cannot be set aside or cannot be said to be illegal so as to interfere with and no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by not furnishing the inquiry report and on account of the orders passed by the sub committee. The judgment of the apex court

¶69

in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v.

¶70

A.Masilamani [2013 (6) SCC 530] was also relied on, in order to assert the contention that if at all it was found that enquiry was not proper, there should not have been any direction to reinstate the employee. Paragraph 16 of the judgment reads as follows:

¶71

16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide ECIL v. B Karunakar, Hiran Mayee Bhattacharayya v. S.M.School for Girls, U.P.State Spg. Co.Ltd.v. R.S.Pandey and Union of India v. Y.S.Sadhu)

¶72

It is therefore submitted that in view of the past history of

¶73

the first respondent it was not a fit case that reinstatement can be ordered. It is pointed out that the 1^st respondent was placed under suspension once for misappropriation; a punishment of barring of

¶74

:9:

¶75

W.P.(C) No.35185 of 2010

¶76

increment was awarded on another occasion and he was administered warnings several times. As held by the apex court the matter should have been remitted to the disciplinary authority for conduct of the enquiry.

¶77

I heard Smt.Annapoorna, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶78

It is seen that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent when the first respondent was absenting himself from duty for the period from 9.10.1997 onwards, without furnishing his address for communication. Even in the letter he sent after publication of the memo of charges, he did not choose to disclose his address. In view of the endorsements by postal authorities “addressee abroad” while returning the notices sent to him, there cannot be any dispute that the 1^st respondent is abroad. Moreover it is the power of attorney who filed ARC for him. I do not propose to go into the merits of the contentions, since this court has in the judgment in Ajayakumar K.R. v. State of Kerala and others [2015 KHC 7025] , after interpreting the provisions contained in section 198(4) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, held that when the authority competent to pass the order of dismissal is the President, the punishment imposed by a superior authority above the President

¶79

:10:

¶80

W.P.(C) No.35185 of 2010

¶81

would be without jurisdiction. Therefore, I find it appropriate that the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority for conducting the enquiry afresh in accordance with law. But the first respondent will have to co-operate with the enquiry and the enquiry should be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶82

It is made clear that in the event of non co-operation on the part of the first respondent, there need not be any paper publication; adjournment shall not be granted more than thrice. In case the first respondent is interested, it will be open to him to furnish his present address for communication, otherwise notice need be issued only in the address already furnished. Exts.P8 and P10 are set aside. Inquiry shall be commenced within one month from the date of receipt of the judgment and shall be completed within a further period of 3 months. Parties shall maintain status quo till then.

¶83

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶84

Sd/- P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶85

rkc

The Secretary, Nagalassery Service Co-Op v. M.N.Surendran & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary, Nagalassery Service Co-Op v. M.N.Surendran & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs E.V Saidalavi

B.Angubai Vs State of Kerala

Kerala State Fishing Boat Operators Asso Vs Union of India & Others

P.P.Ibrahim Vs Kseb

Plus Louis Vs Rta, Ernakuklam and Ors.

Sree Dharma Paripalana Yogam Vs Dr.Babu Sebastian