Dismissed

Raghunath Sahoo v. Odisha State Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Bbsr

Orissa HC15 May 2024WA/551/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Intra-court appeal against dismissal of a writ petition challenging continuance of a 2012 disciplinary proceeding after the appellant's superannuation from the Co-operative Bank. The Division Bench held such disputes lie before the Co-operative Tribunal under Section 67-B and dismissed the appeal, extending the time to approach the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; time to approach the Co-operative Tribunal extended to three weeks from the order, with a direction to the Tribunal to decide within four months of filing.

Raghunath Sahoo Vs Odisha State Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Bbsr — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No. 551 of 2024

¶3

…. Raghunath Sahoo Appellant

¶4

Mr. Digambara Mishra, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. Odisha State Co-operative Bank Respondent Limited, Bhubaneswar.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

15.05.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶14

Indisputably, the appellant was a paid servant of Odisha State Co-operative Bank Limited (in short „Co-operative Bank‟) when a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him in 2012. He attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2017. On the plea that the master-servant relationship between the Bank and the appellant ceased consequent upon the appellant‟s superannuation and there being no provision for continuance of the departmental proceeding after his retirement under the Staff Services Rules, 1980 of the Cooperative Bank, it is the appellant‟s case that the departmental proceeding should not be allowed to continue.

¶15

The appellant had earlier approached this Court whereafter the matter was remanded back to the Managing Director of the Cooperative Bank to take a decision on the appellant‟s claim. The Managing Director of the Co-operative Bank rejected the

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

appellant‟s contention by an order dated 14.02.2023 with a finding that he did not have the jurisdiction to drop the departmental proceedings.

¶18

Assailing the said order dated 14.02.2023 and seeking a declaration that the disciplinary proceeding initiated on 28.07.2012 could not continue after his superannuation, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court giving rise to W.P.(C) No.13454 of 2023. A learned Single Judge of this Court has disposed of the said writ petition taking into account the provision under Section 67-B of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 (in short „Act‟) and has granted the appellant a liberty to approach the Co-operative Tribunal by filing an appropriate application, if he had any grievance against continuance of the disciplinary proceeding. The said order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.03.2024 is being assailed in the present intra-Court appeal.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge has misconstrued the provision under Section 67-B of the Act, which refers to only paid servants of a Co-operative Society. Since the appellant is no more a paid servant of the Cooperative Bank after he attained the age of superannuation and his service is not pensionable, Section 67-B of the Act shall not apply.

¶20

Section 67-B(1)(i) of the Act reads as under:

¶21

“67-B (1)(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, any dispute

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

arising in connection with the election of any officebearer of a Society, or the disciplinary action taken by a Society or its Committee against any paid servant of the Society who is not a workman within the meaning of Clause (s) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shall be referred to the Tribunal in the manner and within the period prescribed in that behalf.”

¶24

We don‟t find any infirmity in the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge in interpreting the provision under Section 67B(1)(i) of the Act. Admittedly, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant when he was a paid servant of the society. The dispute pertains to the period when the appellant was a paid employee under the bank. Whether the disciplinary proceeding could be said to have lapsed consequent upon his superannuation or not, in our opinion, falls within the Tribunal‟s jurisdiction to decide under Section 67-B of the Act. Merely because the appellant attained the age of superannuation, his status, for the purpose of invoking Section 67-B of the Act as a paid servant of the cooperative society does not diminish in relation to a period when he was in service.

¶25

Accordingly, we don‟t find any merit in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed.

¶26

While disposing of the appellant‟s writ petition by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge of this Court had granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Tribunal within three weeks from the date of the disposal of the said writ petition.

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the said order is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal by filing an appropriate application within three weeks from today. Since the dispute as to whether the disciplinary proceeding should continue or not is pending since long, we direct that if such an application is filed by the petitioner within the aforesaid period, the Tribunal shall adjudicate the same as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months from the date of such filing.

¶29

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice

¶30

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶31

SK Jena/Secy.

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 17-May-2024 17:50:28

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Raghunath Sahoo v. Odisha State Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunath Sahoo v. Odisha State Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Bbsr

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

Gmb Ceramics Ltd. Vs I.F.C.I. Limited

Jibanananda Mohapatr Vs Anurag Goel

Bhabani S.Khandei Vs Suresh Mohapatra

Geetanjali Sahoo Vs Ranjit Das, Asst. Settlement Officer,Rental Colony Bbsr

Girish Das Vs Vijay Amruta Kulanga, I.A.S.

Kamala Kanta Nayak Vs State of Odisha