Partly allowed

O.N. Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jun 2024WP(C)/4076/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bank manager challenged his dismissal, arguing the appeal was wrongly heard by the Executive Committee instead of the Board of Directors under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The Court held the Executive Committee lacked jurisdiction and quashed the appellate order, remitting the appeal to the Board of Directors.

What did the court decide?

Appeal remitted to Board of Directors; Ext.P3 and Ext.R2(f) quashed.

O.N. Krishnan Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4076 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

O.N. KRISHNAN AGED 74 YEARS, OLAPURAKKAL HOUSE, K.S. PURAM, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686604

¶8

BY ADVS. E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI NARAYANAN P POTTY M.K.SASEENDRAN (MELEL) P.SANKARAN NAMPOOTHIRI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶11

2 KERALA BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 4309 ALSO, PIN - 695033

¶12

3 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

¶13

BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA ATHUL SHAJI P.C SASIDHARAN

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

GP SMT ANIMA. M, SC PC SASIDHARAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) 4076/2023

-2-

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 3^rd day of June 2024)

¶21

The petitioner was an employee of the 2^nd respondent bank. While working as a Manager in Chembu Branch, he was suspended, and an enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer issued a charge sheet dated 19.11.2002 and a domestic enquiry was conducted. In the domestic enquiry, it was found that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Based on the enquiry report, a proceedings was passed on 09.09.2003, dismissing him from service with effect from 09.09.2003. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Directors of the District Co-operative Bank, Kottayam, which is produced as Ext.R2(d) along with the additional counter-affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent. The appeal was filed on 21.10.2003.

¶22

WP(C) 4076/2023

¶23

-3-

¶24

Ext.R2(e) proceedings would show that the appeal was relegated to

¶25

the Executive Committee, and the Executive Committee, on going through the Enquiry Report, found that the charges leveled against the petitioner stands proved and a dismissal order was passed. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, filed Ext.P2 revision against the order of the President of the Bank dated 09.09.2003, before the Government. The Government, by Ext.P3 order dated 30.12.2022, dismissed the revision, holding that there is no need to set aside

¶26

the proceedings issued by the President of the Bank.

¶27

The petitioner filed this writ petition to declare that all adverse findings found against the petitioner in domestic enquiry is unfair, untenable, and illegal and to pay the petitioner all the monetary benefits to which he would have otherwise entitled if he had continued in service.

¶28

A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2^nd

¶29

WP(C) 4076/2023

¶30

-4-

¶31

respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit that a domestic enquiry was conducted, giving the petitioner an opportunity to prove his innocence. However, on the available evidence, it was found that the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved. An additional counter affidavit is also filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, in which Ext.R2(a) memo of charges is produced, and Ext.R2(b) proceedings dated 09.09.2003 dismissing the petitioner is also produced.

¶32

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank argued that, going by Ext.R2(c) order dated 30.09.1986, the Government has approved the service Regulations of the employees of the District/Central Co-operative Banks of Kerala. As per Regulation 26, the appeal has been rightly considered by the Executive Committee. The punishment of dismissal comes under clause ‘e’ of Regulation 24. Therefore, there is no illegality in the

¶33

WP(C) 4076/2023

¶34

-5-

¶35

order passed in the appeal. Moreover, the petitioner invoked the

¶36

revisional jurisdiction of the Government, which also ended in dismissal.

¶37

The counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand,

¶38

argued that going by Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, an appeal against an order imposing a penalty shall be considered by the Board of Management in respect of the Secretary/Manager or other Chief Executive Officer and [all employees holding posts higher than that of Sr. Clerk/Sr. Assistant/I Grade Assistant/Equivalent other employees with same or identical scale of pay], and in respect of all other employees, by the Executive Committee/Board of Management.

¶39

Admittedly, the petitioner was working as a Manager of

¶40

the Bank. Therefore, the appeal ought to have been considered by the Board of Directors and not by the Executive Committee. The

¶41

WP(C) 4076/2023

¶42

-6-

¶43

consideration of the appeal by the Executive Committee is without jurisdiction, and therefore, the order passed is an illegal order. A perusal of Ext.P3 order passed by the Government in the revision, also is without going into the merits, and nothing is stated in Ext.P3. The only sole sentence is that the “Government have heard the parties, examined the facts in detail and are decided there is no need to set aside the proceedings No.EST 911/2003-04 dtd 09.09.2003 issued by the President of Kottayam District Cooperative Bank”.

¶44

When the dismissal of a person is questioned in an appeal or revision, the Appellate Authority or the revisional Authority ought to have gone into the merits of the case and pass a reasoned order. In this case, it is seen that the Appellate order is not passed by an authority that has jurisdiction. Therefore, I have

¶45

no hesitation to hold that the decision of the Executive Committee

¶46

WP(C) 4076/2023

¶47

-7-

¶48

in appeal is illegal and improper. The appeal was not considered

¶49

by a competent authority. Hence, the decision cannot be given effect to. Moreover, Ext.P3 is also cryptic and needs interference.

¶50

In the result, Ext.P3 and the decision in the appeal by the Executive Committee in Ext.R2(f) stand quashed. Ext.R2(d)

¶51

appeal is remitted to the Board of Directors of the Bank to consider afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI

JUDGE

WP(C) 4076/2023

-8-

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4076/2023

¶60

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶61

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14.11.2003
	ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF MEMORANDUM OF REVISION FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.6.2022
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO. 873/2022/CO-OP DATED 30.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 49/1993 DATED 5.8.1993
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 35/2005 OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1.10.2005
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 53/93 DATED 27.8.1993
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 13/94 DATED 18.5.1994
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 15.6.2022 IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1386/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF INDEMNITY DEED DATED 15.5.2002 IN FAVOUR OF 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 10.5.2002 SUBMITTED BY ONE C. JOSEPH AUGUSTINE
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SAID MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SAID COURT (LABOUR COMMISSIONER) DATED 21.10.2003
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF DEPOSITION OF GENERAL MANAGER OF 2ND RESPONDENT BANK DATED 7.3.2002

¶62

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶63

EXHIBIT R2(a)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED
	19/08/2002 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE BANK
EXHIBIT R2(b)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL DATED
	9/9/2003 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK
EXHIBIT R2(c)	THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE REGULATION
EXHIBIT R2(d)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 21/10/2003

¶64

WP(C) 4076/2023

¶65

-9-

¶66

PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

¶67

EXHIBIT R2(e) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE DATED 3/11/2003 TO TRANSFER THE APPEAL TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE EXHIBIT R2(f) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 4/12/2003 OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

O.N. Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.N. Krishnan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaji M.K. Vs the High Court of Kerala,Ernakulam

Sujala.S. Kumari Vs State of Kerala

Jeenaa Damodar Panickar Vs Union of India

Jithesh.K, Vs Malabar Devaswom Board

C v Mathew Vs Kerala Water Authority

Subrahmanya.B Vs Malabar Devaswom Board