Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.
P.R. Venkataiah – Appellant
Versus
Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Central Agricultural Development Bank, Ltd., Hyderabad (represented by its Managing Director), and others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7595 of 1989
Decided on : 17-11-1989
For Petitioner.— Sri M. Panduranga Rao.
For Respondents.— Sri P.M. Gopal Rao.
The provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966, and the rules made thereunder are applicable to employees of co-operative societies, and violation of principles of natural justice during disciplinary proceedings can be remedied through a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, even if alternative remedies are available.
Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - DISCIPLINARY MATTERS - REMEDY OF EMPLOYEES - APPLICABILITY OF ANDHRA PRADESH SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 1966 - WRIT JURISDICTION UNDER ART. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - INTERFERENCE BY HIGH COURT - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - CONSIDERATION OF PAST CONDUCT - STATUTORY RULES - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an accountant in the Karimnagar District Co-operative Central Bank, Ltd., challenged the order of compulsory retirement issued by the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Central Agricultural Development Bank, Ltd., on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and non-compliance with statutory rules during the disciplinary inquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966, and the rules made thereunder were applicable to employees of co-operative societies, including the petitioner, by virtue of S. 69 of the Act. The Court found that the inquiry officer violated principles of natural justice by refusing to adjourn the inquiry despite the petitioner's medical certificate and leave application, and by relying on an old report that was set aside earlier. The Court also held that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the petitioner's past conduct as required by rule 20 of the Shops and Establishments Rules, 1966.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966, and the rules made thereunder are applicable to employees of co-operative societies. 2. Whether the High Court can interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in cases of violation of principles of natural justice, even if alternative remedies are available. 3. Whether the disciplinary authority is required to consider the past conduct of the employee before imposing punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966, and the rules made thereunder are applicable to employees of co-operative societies by virtue of S. 69 of the Act, which expressly states that the provisions of the Act shall apply to co-operative societies notwithstanding anything in the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. 2. The Court held that the High Court can interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in cases of violation of principles of natural justice, even if alternative remedies are available, as it is a settled principle that violation of principles of natural justice can be remedied through a writ petition without exhausting alternative remedies. 3. The Court held that the disciplinary authority is required to consider the past conduct of the employee before imposing punishment, as per rule 20 of the Shops and Establishments Rules, 1966, which mandates that the employer shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record, if any, of the employee, and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances that may exist.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order of punishment and the inquiry, and directed the respondents to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with the statutory provisions and regulations.
JUDGMENT :
1. The case raises the question of the remedy of employees of co-operative societies in disciplinary matters and the applicability of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966. Incidentally, the question also arises whether in such cases, if principles of natural justice are violated, the High Court could issue a writ against the co-operative society under Art. 226 of the Constitution treating the society as a juristic entity.
2. The petitioner was working as accountant in the Karimnagar District Co-operative Central Bank, Ltd., at Choppadandi Branch. He initially questioned the second show-cause notice, dated 10 March 1989, but subsequently amended the writ petition questioning the order of compulsory retirement, dated 17 June 1989, which was issued by the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Central Agricultural Development Bank, Ltd., subsequent to the filing of the writ petition.
3. The petitioner joined service as supervisor on 1 September 1965. He was promoted as assistant accountant on 1 July 1977 and thereafter he became accountant with effect from 19 February 1982. The post of accountant is in the centralised cadre. While working as accountant in the erstwhile Primary Agricultural Development Bank, Karimnagar, the Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Central Agricultural Development Bank issued a charge-memo to the petitioner on 1 June 1983. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge-memo on 8 July 1983 denying all the charges. The enquiry officer fixed the date of enquiry as 30 August 1983. On the ground that he had fallen sick the petitioner asked for an adjournment enclosing a medical certificate. The enquiry, however, was closed and the petitioner was set ex parte. The enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 26 December 1983. The said enquiry report was placed before the appointment committee of the Central Agricultural Development Bank. The said committee felt that the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity and that he should be given a fresh opportunity in the enquiry. Thereafter, a fresh notice was given to the petitioner in regard to the enquiry on 24 June 1986 and the enquiry was fixed on 15 July 1986. The manager of the erstwhile Agricultural Development Bank, Shadnagar, appears to have written a letter that he was busy with his office work and prayed for an adjournment. Because of this, a fresh notice was given on 30 June 1986 stating that the enquiry was adjourned to 18 July 1986. The petitioner appears to have been suffering for quite some time from “duodenal ulcer” and applied for leave with a medical certificate, dated 16 July 1986, to the manager of the bank at Shadnagar and leave was granted for the period 16 July 1986 to 27 July 1986. However, the inquiry officer, who also received a telegram, dated 17 July 1986, and a leave letter with a medical certificate, refused adjournment, set the petitioner ex parte and sent the report which was the same as the previous report, dated 26 December 1983. Thereafter, the present impugned order was issued by the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Central Agricultural Development Bank, Ltd., retiring the petitioner compulsorily as a measure of punishment. In addition to the punishment stated above, an amount of Rs. 2,797.99 together with interest in a sum of Rs. 1,962-60 was sought to be recovered. It is this order that is questioned in the writ petition.
4. The petitioner's counsel Sri M. Panduranga Rao contended that apart from the bye-laws or regulations dealing with disciplinary inquiry the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act and the rules made thereunder are expressly made applicable to employees of co-operative societies and violation of the statutory rules relating to natural justice, consideration of past conduct, etc., are sufficient to seek issuance of a writ even to a co-operative society under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
