President, Chorode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. LL-139, Vs the Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal

¶1

2025:KER:25989

¶2

WP(C) NO. 8041 OF 2024

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH

¶7

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

WP(C) NO.8041 OF 2024

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

1 PRESIDENT, CHORODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. LL-
139,
AGED 64 YEARS
HEAD OFFICE, CHORODE POST, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673106

¶11

2 CHORODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. LL-139, AGED 54 YEARS HEAD OFFICE, CHORODE POST, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SURESH A., AGED 54, PIN - 673106

¶12

BY ADVS.
C.ANIL KUMAR
A.K.PREETHA
DEVIKA MOHAN

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, VAZHUTHACAUD-POOJAPPURA ROAD, DPI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695014

¶15

2 THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT (NORTHERN) KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, SASTRI NAGAR ROAD, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 637006

¶16

3 BABU N.K., N.K. HOUSE, KRISHNA KENDRAM, MUTTUNGAL POST, VALLIKKAD, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673106

¶17

2025:KER:25989
WP(C) NO. 8041 OF 2024
2
BY ADVS.
P.N.MOHANAN
C.P.SABARI

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 8041 OF 2024

¶20

2025:KER:25989

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal in Appeal No.2/2020 instituted by the 3^rd respondent against the award of the Co-operative Arbitration Court dated 21.10.2019 passed in ARC No.72/2017.

¶24

2.The 3^rd respondent, while working as Assistant Secretary faced disciplinary proceedings for the charges of appointing seven persons on a daily wage basis at the remuneration of Rs.500/- per day to each employee and paying legal fees of Rs.1,17,500/- to Adv. Swathikumar, without the concurrence of the Administrative Committee / Board of Directors and in violation of Clause 33(37) of the bye-laws of the Society.

¶25

The next charge was for not obtaining the receipts of payment in the official printed format of the Bank and, thus, dishonestly breached the trust of the Bank. The 3^rd charge against the petitioner was misusing the position of Secretary in charge by making illegal appointments which gave wrongful message of

¶26

WP(C) NO. 8041 OF 2024

¶27

2025:KER:25989

¶28

¶29

indiscipline to the subordinate staff of the Bank, which promoted insubordination and disobedience amongst them.

¶30

4.The enquiry officer found the charges proved against the 3^rd respondent. The disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment on the 3^rd respondent and demoted him from the post of Assistant Secretary to the post of Accountant.

¶31

5.The 3^rd respondent challenged the said order of punishment inflicted upon him by the disciplinary authority as well as the order passed in departmental appeal before the Co-operative Court under Section 69(2) under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. In the departmental appeal, the punishment of reversion to the post of Accountant was modified to that of Junior most Bank Manager. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent challenged the said orders by filling the Arbitration Case No. 72/2017 before the Co-operative Arbitration Court. The Arbitration Court, after examining the record, pleadings, evidence and submissions, found that the 3rd respondent had committed misconduct on the two allegations. Regarding the quantum of punishment, the Arbitration Court was of

¶32

WP(C) NO. 8041 OF 2024

¶33

2025:KER:25989

¶34

¶35

the opinion that the 3^rd respondent was working as a Secretary and the punishment of demotion to the post of Junior most Bank Manager was not unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶36

6.The 3^rd respondent, being aggrieved by the said award passed by the Arbitration court, filed appeal No. 2/2020 under Section 82 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The Kerala Cooperative Tribunal vide the impugned order has remanded the case back to the Arbitration Court on the ground that the 3^rd respondent was not given enough opportunity to produce the official records and minutes of the books to prove that the administrative committee had taken the decision for appointment of Adv. Swathikumar, the counsel who conducted the case before the High Court, and it was the obligation of the employer / Society to produce those documents before the Enquiry Officer and before the Arbitration Court.

¶37

Regarding the 3^rd charge, that the 3^rd respondent had set up a bad precedent among the employees who were not obeying the lawful directions and were showing in-subordination by committing

¶38

WP(C) NO. 8041 OF 2024

¶39

2025:KER:25989

¶40

¶41

dereliction of duty, the Tribunal found that the third charge would not hold good.

¶42

The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the award and remanded the matter back to the Arbitration Court with a direction to the Arbitration court to afford an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence, and thereafter, arrive at a proper conclusion in the matter.

¶43

9.Ms. Preetha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 3rd respondent never demanded any document, and it was not his case that he was not given the document to defend himself. The 3^rd respondent never denied that the payment to the seven employees engaged by him on a daily wage of Rs.500/- each was not paid on printed proforma of the Bank. Neither the counsel fee was paid in the printed Performa of the Bank. There was no decision of the Administrative committee to change the counsel, and the 3^rd respondent never produced any such minutes of the administrative committee to change the counsel of the Bank in the High Court and pay the fee of Rs.1,17,500/- that too not on the printed proforma.

¶44

10.The learned counsel for the Petitioner Society further

¶45

WP(C) NO. 8041 OF 2024

¶46

2025:KER:25989

¶47

7 submits that the charges levelled against the 3^rd respondent stood proved during the enquiry. However, the appellate authority, considering the services of the petitioner, reduced the punishment from demotion to the post of Accountant to the Branch Manager, and the said decision was upheld by the Arbitration court. There was no occasion or any ground available before the Tribunal to set aside well reasoned award passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court. 11.It is submitted that the Tribunal has assumed the facts that were not in existence and, based on incorrect consideration of the facts, remanded the matter back after setting aside the award passed by the Arbitration Court. The Kerala Co-operative Tribunal exercises the appellate jurisdiction, and the appeal is a continuation of the proceedings before the Arbitration court, therefore, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to remand the matter back to the Arbitration court.

¶48

12.The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent, however, submits that the petitioner engaged 7 employees on daily wage on the basis of the decision of the Administrative Committee, and

¶49

WP(C) NO. 8041 OF 2024

¶50

2025:KER:25989

¶51

¶52

change of counsel was also on the basis of the decision taken by the Administrative Committee. The petitioner, being the employee of the Society, was bound to carry out the instructions and decisions of the Administrative Committee. He did not take any independent decision to employ seven persons on daily wage basis or to change the counsel and pay the fee.

¶53

13.Heard Ms.Preetha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Society and Mr. C.P Sabari, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶54

14.This Court is exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, it would not be appropriate to evaluate the evidence while deciding the writ petition.

¶55

15.The question is whether the Tribunal had sufficient materials and grounds to set aside the award passed by the Arbitration Court or whether it had assumed non-existent facts to set aside the award and remand the matter back to the Arbitration Court.

¶56

WP(C) NO. 8041 OF 2024

¶57

2025:KER:25989

¶58

9 16.The 3^rd respondent never demanded the minutes of the meeting or the decision of the Administrative Committee. In fact, the categorical case of the Society was that the administrative committee did not authorise the 3^rd respondent to engage seven persons on a daily wage basis of Rs.500/- per day, or the administrative committee authorized the 3^rd respondent to change the counsel. The 3^rd respondent did not deny the fact that the payments were not made to the seven employees and the counsel on a printed receipt from the bank. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, the charges were proved. The punishment was modified by the appellate authority, which was upheld by the Arbitration court. I am of the opinion that remanding the matter back to the Arbitration Court by the Tribunal does not appear to be justified.

¶59

17.The 3^rd respondent has already demitted the office on 30.06.2020, and in view thereof, it should be wholly unjustified to remand the matter back to the Arbitration court for a fresh decision. Every aspect had been considered by the Arbitration Court and a

¶60

2025:KER:25989

¶61

WP(C) NO. 8041 OF 2024

¶62

¶63

reasoned award was rendered by the Arbitration Court. Thus, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside.

Sd/-

D. K. SINGH

JUDGE

SJ

2025:KER:25989

¶69

WP(C) NO. 8041 OF 2024

¶70

¶71

	`APPENDIXOF WP(C) 8041/2024`
`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit P-1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO AND STATEMENT OF` `ALLEGATIONS DATED 02.11.2016 ISSUED TO THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P-2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10.04.2017 OF THE` `ENQUIRY OFFICER`
`Exhibit P-3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2017 IMPOSING` `THE PUNISHMENT ON THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P-4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ARC NO. 72/2017 BEFORE` `THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT`
`Exhibit P-5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE` `PETITIONERS IN ARC NO. 72/2017`
`Exhibit P-6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2019 PASSED BY` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT ARBITRATION COURT IN ARC NO.` `72/2017`
`Exhibit P-7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2023 PASSED` `BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.` `02/2020`
`Exhibit P-8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECISIONS OF THE` `ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE PRODUCED AND MARKED` `BEFORE THE ARBITRATION COURT`
`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT R3(b)`	`true copy of the order no.004\2017 dated` `12.08.2017 of the bank`
`EXHIBIT R3(c)`	`true copy of the Judgment dated 05.12.2017 in` `W.P.(C).No.38938/2017`
`EXHIBIT R3(e)`	`true copy of the charge memo dated 01.01.2017` `issued by the Enquiry Officer`
`EXHIBIT R3(d)`	`true copy of the ARC.No.72/2017`

¶72

¶73

2025:KER:25989

¶74

WP(C) NO. 8041 OF 2024

¶75

EXHIBIT R3(f) true copy of the objection dated 07.01.2017
submitted by the third respondent

¶76

EXHIBIT R3(a) true copy of the order no.001\2017 dated
25.05.2017 imposed by the disciplinary
subcommittee

President, Chorode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. LL-139, v. the Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

President, Chorode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. LL-139, v. the Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaprasad.K Vs State of Kerala

Aneena Joseph Vs the High Court of Kerala

Anil K. Vs State of Kerala

Subhadramma T.G., Vs Union of India

G.Madhusoodanan Namboothiri, Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

K.C. Asokan Vs State of Kerala