Disposed

T.P James v. Ernakulam District Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC7 Jun 2017WP(C)/16827/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that since the Board members involved in the disciplinary proceedings also reviewed the appeal and initially reduced the punishment before reimposing dismissal, there was apprehension of bias. The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the current Administrator to reconsider the appeal afresh, affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Administrator was gi

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned resolution (Ex.P10) and consequential order; directed the Administrator to reconsider the appeal within two months.

T.P James Vs Ernakulam District Co-Op.Bank Ltd. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/17TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 16827 of 2016 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

T.P JAMES,

¶8

SENIOR ACCOUNTANT (UNDER ORDER OF DISMISSAL), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KAKKANAD, RESIDING AT PULICKAL HOUSE, PAZHOOR, PIRAVOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 664.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.M.M.MONAYE

¶10

SRI.M.PAUL VARGHESE SRI.T.KOSHY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

1. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶13

2. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶14

3. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶15

4. GENERAL MANAGER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030.

¶16

5. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030.

¶17

R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, S.C

¶18

ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI, S.C

¶19

R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Msd.

¶22

WP(C).No. 16827 of 2016 (C)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶25

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 03.01.2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF WITNESSES DATED 09.05.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE BANKS PRESENTING OFFICER.

¶27

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 10.05.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PUNISHMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE SMT.SUMATHY KUTTY AMMA IN SERVICE ORDER NO.518/2015-16 DATED 21.01.2016.

¶29

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PUNISHMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE SAID SMT.SEENAMOL, IN SERVICE ORDER NO.519/2015-16 DATED 21.01.2016.

¶30

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE ORDER DATED 08.11.2014 DISMISSING THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE.

¶31

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 26.11.2014.

¶32

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS SHOWING THE RESOLUTION NO.7 DATED 31.01.2015.

¶33

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.04.2016 COMMUNICATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL.

¶34

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS SHOWING THE DECISION NO.8 DATED 28.03.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

¶35

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE SHOWING THE DECISION NO.254 DATED 08.11.2014.

¶36

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶37

EXHIBIT R4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE WORK DISTRIBUTION ORDER DATED 01.10.2012 OF THE PETITIONER.

¶38

EXHIBIT R4(B): TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT OF THE INSPECTION CONDUCTED ON 08.10.2012 BY THE MUVATTUPUZHA RURAL BRANCH OF THE RESPONDENT BANK.

¶39

WP(C).No. 16827 of 2016 (C)

¶40

EXHIBIT R4(C): TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BANK. EXHIBIT R4(D): TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY EMPLOYEE SRI. MANOJKUMAR OF THE MUVATTUPUZHA RURAL BRANCH. EXHIBIT R4(E): TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY EMPLOYEE SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH OF THE MUVATTUPUZHA RURAL BRANCH. EXHIBIT R4(F): TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY EMPLOYEE SMT. BEENAMOL K.K. OF THE MUVATTUPUZHA RURAL BRANCH. EXHIBIT R4(G): TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY EMPLOYEE SMT. SUMATHYKUTTY OF THE MUVATTUPUZHA RURAL BRANCH. EXHIBIT R4(H): TRUE COPY OF INSPECTION REPORT NO. 909/INSPN/7#/INS/IA/1678/2005-2006 DATED 29.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK. EXHIBIT R4(I): TRUE COPY OF THE ERC NO. 200 WITH ORDER OF SUSPENSION DATED 09.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK. EXHIBIT R4(J): TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. HRD/44/13-14 DATED 16.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK. EXHIBIT R4(K): TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 08.10.2013 SHOWING THE IRREGULARITIES DETECTED DURING THE INSPECTION DULY ATTESTED BY THE INSPECTING AUTHORITIES ON VERIFICATION. EXHIBIT R4(L): TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 04.08.2014. EXHIBIT R4(M): TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. HRD/44/13-14 DATED 09.09.2014 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT BANK. EXHIBIT R4(N): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE EXHIBIT R4(M) MEMO SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT BANK. EXHIBIT R4(O): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 07.10.2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER CALLING UPON FOR A PERSONAL HEARING BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

¶41

WP(C).No. 16827 of 2016 (C)

¶42

EXHIBIT R4(P):	TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 09.10.2014 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER IN EXHIBIT R4(O).
EXHIBIT R4(Q):	TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 18.12.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT BANK.
EXHIBIT R4(R):	TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 02.05.2013 IN ARC NO. 237/2012 OF DEPUTY REGISTRAR/SPECIAL ARBITRATOR OF THE RESPONDENT BANK.
EXHIBIT R4(S):	TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO. 100/2014 IN ARC NO. 237/2012 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK BEFORE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
EXHIBIT R4(T):	TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE PIRAVOM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT BANK.
EXHIBIT R4(V):	TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PIRAVOM AS CRIME NO. 464/2015.
	//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE.

¶43

Msd.

¶44

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶45

=========================

¶46

W.P.(C) No.16827 of 2016

¶47

========================== Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2017

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

The petitioner, while working as a Senior Accountant in the services of the first respondent – District Co-operative Bank, was proceeded against departmentally on certain allegations of financial irregularity in the sanction of certain gold loans. The allegations against the petitioner was enquired through a domestic enquiry, which culminated in Ext.P6 order finding him guilty of the charges and imposing a punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal which has been produced by the petitioner and appended to this writ petition as Ext.P7. It transpires that while Ext.P7 was pending before the Board, the petitioner moved another application seeking indulgence of the Board and praying that his punishment be reduced so as to enable him to continue in service. The Board appears to have considered the petitioner's appeal along with the said application for indulgence and to have passed Ext.P8 resolution on 31.01.2015, under which, the petitioner's punishment was reduced, demoting him to a lower post of

¶50

W.P.(C) No.16827 of 2016

¶51

¶52

Accountant. The petitioner says that even though Ext.P8 resolution was passed as early as on 31.01.2015, the same was not implemented by the Board for a certain period of time. He says that thereafter without any notice to him and rather abruptly, the Board again met and adopted Ext.P10 fresh resolution on 28.03.2016 wherein they decided to reimpose the punishment of termination of service against him noticing several other acts of alleged indiscipline on his side specially with respect to certain loans that he had availed. The petitioner has impugned Ext.P10 on the ground that it has been issued without authority and against the principles of natural justice.

¶53

I have heard Sri. M.M.Monaye, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.N.Reghuraj, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the fifth respondent .

¶54

Even though several allegations are made by the petitioner against the orders impugned in this writ petition, one issue that grips my mind is the fact that the appeal was also heard by the Board which had members of the disciplinary committee. This does not appear to be sustainable in law

¶55

W.P.(C) No.16827 of 2016

¶56

¶57

because obviously, the Board's view would be guided by the views of the members of the disciplinary committee who had imposed the punishment of termination against him. It is true that the prejudice to the petitioner on this account cannot be immediately demonstrated because even a Board which had the same disciplinary committee members had resolved under Ext.P8 to give him a lesser punishment. I see that the reason why the Board thereafter decided not to implement the reduction in punishment but giving the same punishment as was proposed in Ext.P6 is because there were several other allegations against the petitioner and the Board appears to have come to a conclusion that any indulgence shown to the petitioner would not be in the best interest of the society.

¶58

That having been said, the fact that the petitioner was initially granted a benefit though not legally vested on him and the fact that this was later over turned by a subsequent meeting of the same Board guides me to think that the considerations which weighed in his favour while Ext.P8 was considered was not really taken into by the Board subsequently. I also notice that when Ext.P10 resolution was issued, the members of the

¶59

W.P.(C) No.16827 of 2016

¶60

¶61

disciplinary committee were also part of it. That certainly would show some prejudice against the petitioner. I, therefore, am of the view that in order to dispel any possible suspicion of prejudice to the petitioner in any manner, it is necessary that the Board of the Bank be now directed to reconsider the appeal.

¶62

Sri.N.Reghuraj, learned counsel for the Bank informs me that the Board which considered the appeal of the petitioner is no longer in office and that the Bank is now under the management of the Administrator who is an officer in the rank of Joint Registrar of Societies.

¶63

In such view of the matter and since I notice that the present Appellate Authority is different from the Appellate Authority who adopted Exts.P8 and P10 resolutions, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted one opportunity to seek indulgence of the Administrator who shall take cognizance of all the factors that he has presented in this writ petition.

¶64

In such circumstances, I quash Exts.P8 and P10 resolutions and the consequential Exts.P9 order and direct the Administrator in charge of the first respondent-bank to reconsider Ext.P7 appeal of the petitioner, after affording an

¶65

W.P.(C) No.16827 of 2016

¶66

¶67

opportunity of being heard to him, as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I am fixing a short time frame because I notice the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client will retire in less than a year's time and I direct the Administrator to reconsider the appeal within the time granted herein without seeking any further extension.

¶68

Needless to say, the Administrator shall consider the peculiar circumstances under which the petitioner is placed in as also all the factors that may enure to his benefit and take appropriate decision in his appeal in a considerate manner and offer such indulgence as may be permissible in law to him taking into view the fact that the earlier management had once decided to give him a lesser punishment, as is evidenced from Ext.P8.

¶69

The writ petition is ordered as above.

¶70

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶71

stu

T.P James v. Ernakulam District Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P James v. Ernakulam District Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

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

The Manager, Kpes Higher Secondary School, Kayakkodi Vs Dr.Usha Titus

Kerala Shipping Mill Workers' Union Vs Kerala State Textile Corporation & Ors.

The Manager Vs State of Kerala

N.Krishnan Nampoothiri Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Dr.Mary Mathew Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

V.P.Ibrahim Kutty Vs Hotel Park Residency