Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE18H DAY OF NOVEMBER201427TH KARTHIKA, 1936 WP(C).No. 27572 of 2014 (V) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S) : ------------------------ KUMARI VALSALA.L, CHIEF ACCOUNTANT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.T.131, PRESS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.T.131, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PRESS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. AMBIKA A., ASSISTANT SECRETARY IN CHARGE OF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.T.131, PRESS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4. THE ARBITRATION COURT, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/ SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.B.JAYACHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1811-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. WP(C).No. 27572 of 2014 (V) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER
DATED1602-2013 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS DATED2407-2013 EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED1208-2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED3011-2013 OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. EXHIBIT P6: ARBITRATION CASE NO.110/2013 FILED BEFORE THE4H RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER
DATED3012-2013 IN I.A.NO.80/2013 IN ARC.NO.110/2013. EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK HAVING I.A NO.19/2014. EXHIBIT P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CO-OERPATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER
DATED3004-2014 IN ARC.NO.110/2013. EXHIBIT P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED0401-2014. EXHIBIT P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED0801-2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COMMITTEE OF THE BANK. EXHIBIT P13: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED1501-2014 OF THE SUB COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT P14: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED3004-2014 OF THE BANK. EXHIBIT P15: A TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED PLAINT AND REPLICATIONS FILED BEFORE THE4H RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P16: A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED1710-2014 IN A.R.C NO.110/2013 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------------- EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY MINUTES. WP(C).No. 27572 of 2014 (V) ---------------------------------------- EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT R1(C): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE APPEAL COMMITTEE. //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE. Msd. K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
===================== W.P.(C) No.27572 of 2014 - ====================== Dated this the .... day of November, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was a Secretary of the Trivandrum Service Co-operative Bank, who was dismissed from service, after a disciplinary enquiry. The petitioner had availed of the alternate remedy availed under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for brevity, 'the KCS Act') and approached the Arbitration Court, which rejected the case by Ext.P16. By-passing the remedy of appeal, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, primarily for the reason that she is being superannuated on 30.11.2014, before which she is interested in getting back into service to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction. The petitioner challenges the validity of the enquiry on violation of principles of natural justice.
2. The petitioner alleges that the charges were vague, W.P.(C) No.27572 of 2014 2 the enquiry was conducted without affording her an opportunity to defend her case, the documents were marked without supplying copies to her and without putting any witness on the stand. The petitioner has a further challenge insofar as the disciplinary authority having deferred with the enquiry officer, with respect to one findings where the latter found her not guilty, but, to the former reversed it and found her guilty. This was without notice to her, is the contention urged.
3. The invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 is purely discretionary and as is trite can be resorted to only in circumstances where there is jurisdictional infirmity, violation of principles of natural justice, proceedings being not sanctioned by the provision or the provision itself being ultra-vires. When alternate remedies are available, this Court would be slow to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction, unless such prima facie infirmity stares at the face of this Court making relegation to the alternate remedy a futile exercise, or were injustice is so apparent as to W.P.(C) No.27572 of 2014 3 warrant exercise of discretion.
3. In the present case, it is to be noticed that the challenge is based on the fundamental aspects of whether there was a violation of principles of natural justice, which definitely has to be looked at in the background of the enquiry proceedings and the manner in which it was conducted, as also the procedure followed by the disciplinary authority in imposing punishment. This would necessitate a factual adjudication, which this Court would not endeavor to make at this stage, despite the hardship pointed out by the petitioner.
4. In any event, before relegating to the petitioner to the alternate remedy of appeal, this Court has looked into the grounds raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the very conduct of enquiry and the imposition of punishment and how the same has been considered by the Arbitration Court. This has to place on record that the Arbitration Court has miserably failed to consider any of the vital aspects. The Arbitration Court was more motivated by W.P.(C) No.27572 of 2014 4 the fact that, this Court having a writ petition directed disposal of the case within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Such a direction was not to somehow conclude the matter, but, however expedite the adjudication processes.
5. On a reading of Ext.P16, it is found that after statement of facts, the sole issue raised for consideration was whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed. It is trite that, when challenge is made against the enquiry and the enquiry proceedings are assailed as having been vitiated, the Court considering the case has to first look at whether the enquiry is vitiated. If it is held to be proper and in tune with the principles of natural justice, then necessarily the Court would look into the merits of the case put forth by the delinquent employee. On the contrary, if the Court finds that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated, then the management has to be given an opportunity to adduce evidence to substantiate the charges levelled against the delinquent employee. W.P.(C) No.27572 of 2014 5 6. This is especially has been given a complete ... by the Arbitration Court. After statement of facts, the Court has noted the contentions of both sides and has also cited the judgments placed on record by both sides. The issue was considered with levity in the last paragraph. What waived with the Arbitration Court was that, the charges levelled were not stated in the plaint. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff/petitioner herein had led evidence and had marked 20 documents, of which A8 is the memo of charges. No witness is seen to have been examined. The enquiry proceedings were not brought on record nor was the enquiry officer examined.
7. The Arbitration Court, by a mere sentence found that the exhibits produced, the various decisions cited, do not warrant any finding illegality in the manner of conduct of the domestic enquiry. The plaintiff was thus declined with any relief. This Court cannot but expresses strong displeasure in the manner in which the Arbitration Court had conducted itself. It is not the first time that this Court W.P.(C) No.27572 of 2014 6 has come across such decisions, where even the fundamental procedures, which give a credibility to the adjudication process is not followed up by this Court and the employees appointed under the KCS Act.
8. Though not a matter in issue herein, the monitory disputes are disposed of by awards in printed forms with no consideration at all. It is to be noticed that, such alternate procedure enshrined in the Act by the legislator is to expedite dispute resolution to the Co-operative sector. All the same it is also to be noticed that such power has been conferred on the Arbitrators and Courts constituted under the KCS Act, taking away such powers from the Civil Courts and or Special Courts constituted for the purpose. K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB