Judgment:
R.K. Patra, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order terminating his services as Branch Manager communicated in office order No. 4228 dated October 13, 1997 (Annexure-3) as well as the judgment dated November 8, 2001 (Annexure-4) passed by the Member, Co-operative Tribunal, Orissa in Service Dispute No. 184 of 1997.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as follows:
While the petitioner was serving as Branch Manger, Balianta Branch of Khurda Central Co-operative Bank Limited, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the basis of five charges. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges. The Appointment Committee of the aforesaid Co-operative Bank on consideration of the report terminated his service as communicated by the impugned Order No. 4228 dated October 13, 1997 (Annexure-3). Being aggrieved by the order of termination, he raised dispute under Section 67-B of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 before the Co-operative Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar (Vide Service Dispute No. 184 of 1997). The learned Member of the Co-operative Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated November 8, 2001 (Annexure-4) dismissed the case holding that the same is not maintainable because of the fact that the petitioner had not 'exhausted the prescribed forum to prefer appeal before the appellate authority.'
3. We have heard Shri Sahoo for the petitioner and Shri Mohapatra for the opposite party.
4. On perusal of the impugned judgment at Annexure-4 we are satisfied that the view taken by the learned Member is perverse. Against the order of termination, the petitioner could have appealed as prescribed under the service rules applicable to him. But non-pursuing of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Tribunal in entertaining the dispute and deciding the same on merits. The learned Member lost sight of the provision of Section 67-B which starts with a non-obstante Clause stating that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, any dispute arising in connection with the disciplinary action taken by the Society shall be referred to the Tribunal. No provision of the service rules is brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank prohibiting any person from invoking Section 67-B without exhausting any alternative remedy by way of appeal before the prescribed appellate authority. On the other hand, as we have noticed above Section 67-B empowers the Tribunal to entertain dispute of the nature provided therein notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force.
5. Besides the above reasons, the learned Member should not have relegated the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy to prefer appeal after keeping the dispute pending on his file for about four years. Had he disposed of the matter at the threshold, the petitioner could have availed of the appeal provision and could have got its result. It appears from the record that the learned Member in fact examined witnesses in the dispute case and, therefore, in the interest of justice, he ought to have decided the case on merits. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned judgment of the learned Member of the Tribunal at Annexure-4 cannot be sustained in law which is hereby quashed.
6. Shri Sahoo submitted that this Court should not remit to the Tribunal for fresh disposal because it would add to the petitioner's miseries of languishing. He also submitted that at present no member has been posted to the Co-operative Tribunal and, as such, remitting the matter to the Tribunal would be a futile exercise. We have duly considered the above submission and find force therein.
7. Five charges were framed against the petitioner, we may, therefore, proceed to consider the validity of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in respect of those charges seriatim.
8. The gravamen of charge No. 1 is that due to non-submission of proposal relating to crop insurance in respect of 'A' component loan premium of Sarat Co-operative Society, there was loss of Rs. 27,278,00. Petitioner's defence was that he submitted proposal in time and submission of those proposals were being reviewed in staff meeting from time to time. The entire finance under the HYVP (Rabi) is required to be covered under insurance. His further case was that he submitted the statement in letter No. 127 dated March 16, 1995. The Enquiry Officer observed that the plea of the petitioner that he sent it in the aforesaid letter was imaginary and fabricated with a view to mislead the head office. The aforesaid finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence. In the enquiry before the Tribunal the petitioner was examined as PW 1. He reiterated in his evidence that crop insurance proposal from Balipatna Branch was sent to the head office but on account of the negligence of the Bank, the insurance claim could not be collected from the Insurance Company. In the face of such evidence, we are inclined to hold that no reasonable person could come to such a finding and, therefore, the same is perverse.
9. Substance of the second charge is that the petitioner as Branch Manger instead of staying at Balianta Branch was not attending the Branch headquarters and was rather attending at Extension counter at Balakati. The defence of the petitioner was that Balianta Branch as well as Balakati Extension counter was opened on one day and, as such, he remained in charge of both the offices. He has to remain so because the other Bank staffs were ad hoc Bank/personnel and he did not feel wise to hand over charge of one of the offices to any of them. The Enquiry officer has not considered the explanation and by merely observing that the plea of the petitioner was not convincing, recorded the finding of guilt.
10. The third charge against the petitioner was that he submitted the day-book abstract from April 2, 1996 to April 30, 1996 in a bunch but there was arrears upto May 11, 1996. Because of the negligence of the petitioner, the Bank had to face 'much trouble'. The defence of the petitioner was that he expressed his difficulty in the meeting in not submitting the up-to-date abstract of the day-book. Besides, maintenance of day-book and submission of report were the functions of the accountant. Here also the Enquiry Officer vaguely without going into the merits of the charge observed that the plea of the petitioner was not convincing.
11. The fourth charge was that during the period of suspension although his headquarters was fixed at Bhubaneswar, the petitioner failed to attend the headquarters. Petitioner's plea was that at the time of suspension he was incharge of Balipatna Branch and, therefore, the headquarters should have fixed at Balipatna and not Bhubaneswar. The Enquiry Officer observed that it was not desirable on his part to disobey the order of the authority.
12. Charge No. 5 was that important letters which were sent to the petitioner returned with postal remark that the addressee was absent. It is the case of the petitioner that since he was at Balakati, letters sent to him in the Balianta address might have come back. The Enquiry Officer similarly by observing that the plea was not convincing held him guilty of the charge. If the postal authority sends back the letters to the sender with an endorsement that the addressee is absent, how could the petitioner be held responsible for it. We have not been able to appreciate as to how such matter could be a basis for framing a departmental charge.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner is guilty of the charges cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, the final order based on such report is vitiated.
14. In the result, the impugned order of termination at Annexure-3 is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner in his service forthwith. He would be entitled to back wages.
15. The Writ petition is allowed.
M. Papanna, J.
16. I agree.