Back
2008 Supreme(AP) 508
Andhra Pradesh High Court
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
G. Ravindranath — APPELLANT
Versus
Anantapur District Co.op. Central Bank Ltd. — RESPONDENT
Writ Petition No. 17305 of 2006
Decided on 15-7-2008.
Mr. V. Jagapathi, Counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent.
Headnote:
Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 – Section 60 – Petitioner was appointed as a Messenger in the Kalyandurg Branch of District Co-operative Central Bank Limited - On finding that he held requisite qualifications he was entrusted with duties of Cashier, by paying additional remuneration was drawn by Branch Manager of Kalyandurg, from Head Office on for disbursement to beneficiaries of Crop Insurance Scheme Petitioner submits that he is not at all responsible for the defalcation of the collection amount and in proceedings initiated under Section 60 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act then Manager and another Messenger were held responsible for it – He contends that a totally defective procedure was followed in domestic inquiry and that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself – An objection is raised as to nature of punishment pleading that termination of service does not find place in Service Regulations – Held, Much was argued about the role assigned to one has already been pointed out that limited role assigned to him was to verify as to whether correct procedure was followed and petitioner was given adequate opportunity in inquiry for that purpose petitioner was required to appear before him and record discloses that the petitioner had appeared and put forward his version fact, however, remains that findings on charges levelled against petitioner were recorded by Inquiry Officer and only those were taken into account petitioner is not able to demonstrate that findings on charges are either perverse or without any evidence. Even if a second view is possible on appreciation of material on record this Court cannot interfere with findings – In matters of this nature what becomes verifiable is decision making process than decision itself – Though petitioner raised a plea that correct procedure was not followed this Court is satisfied that respondents have gone an extra mile to give more opportunity to petitioner than what was required under law – Whether one calis it the termination, removal or dismissal; an act through which the relationship of employer and employee is brought to an end as a measure of punishment and as a sequel to disciplinary proceedings cannot be treated anything but punishment – At most words employed may have any impact as to consequences that too depending upon text of Rules. For instance an employee who is dismissed from service, is rendered unfit for re-employment whereas one who is removed does not carry said disqualification – Writ petition is dismissed
The petitioner was appointed as a Messenger in the Kalyandurg Branch of Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, the respondent herein. On finding that he held requisite qualifications, he was entrusted with the duties of Cashier, by paying additional remuneration. A sum of Rs. 15 lakhs was drawn by the Branch Manager of Kalyandurg, from the Head Office on 31-8-2004, for disbursement to the beneficiaries of Crop Insurance Scheme.
However, the amount was not paid to the beneficiaries. A preliminary inquiry was conducted, and on the basis of the findings therein, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, on 27-7-2005. On a consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted a report dated 24-8-2005. The Appointing Authority accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. Ultimately through 29 proceedings dated 29-6-2006, the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition.
2. Petitioner submits that he is not at all responsible for the defalcation of the collection amount of Rs. 15 lakhs, and in the proceedings initiated under Section 60 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act'), the then Manager and another Messenger were held responsible for it. He contends that a totally defective procedure was followed in the domestic inquiry, and that he was not given an opportunity to defend himself. An objection is raised as to the nature of punishment, pleading that termination of service does not find place in the Service Regulations.
3. On behalf of the respondent, a counteraffidavit is filed, opposing the case of the petitioner. It is stated that a domestic inquiry was conducted by appointing an Inquiry Officer, and that the petitioner has participated in it. It is stated that since the petitioner made a representation to the effect that he was not given an opportunity, the then Person-in-Charge, asked another official to verify the record and examine the plea of the petitioner, in the context of lack of opportunity, and on that count, it cannot be said that successive Inquiry Officers were appointed. It is also stated that the petitioner has, in fact, admitted clearly that he received the amount, but did not account for it.
4. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, denying certain facts, that were pleaded in the counter-affidavit.
5. Sri V. Jagapathi, learned counsel, advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that there is nothing on record to disclose that the petitioner was appointed as Cashier, and it is unthinkable that a Messenger is entrusted with the duty of handling such huge amounts. He contends that as many as three inquiries were conducted, in the matter, in flagrant violation of the Service Regulations, and there is no consistency in the findings against the petitioner. He further submits that adequate opportunity was not given to the petitioner in the domestic inquiry. Another contention advanced by the learned counsel is that, termination of service cannot be treated as a punishment, and the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service.
6. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that it was clearly established in the domestic inquiry that the petitioner is guilty of charges, framed against him. He contends that the domestic inquiry was conducted through an Inquiry Officer, by name, Sri Krishna Mohan. He submits that a Preliminary inquiry, before framing of charges was conducted by one, Mr. P.V.Ramana, and a general verification was entrusted to one K. Sydubabu. The General Manager on a representation made by the petitioner, that he was not given adequate opportunity in the domestic inquiry, held that the report submitted by the said officials cannot be treated either in supersession of the actual inquiry report. He submits that the stand of the petitioner was not consisten
