The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing a fair and reasonable opportunity for the accused to defend themselves and the need for substantial evidence to support the dismissal of an employee.

1. In these writ petitions, the petitioner – Union is challenging the order dated 02.09.2010 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.913/2004 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bellary – respondent No.2 herein.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act’). Respondent No.3 was working as Office Assistant under the petitioner. On allegations of misconduct, a Disciplinary Enquiry was ordered against respondent No.3 along with certain other employees. The charges leveled against respondent No.3 and other employees were as under:

i) leaving the place of work without any intimation;

ii) abusing and threatening the employees of the Union;

iii) gheraoing;

iv) acting against the interest of the Union with oblique intension;

v) acts subversive of discipline.

3. Petitioner – Union did not lead any evidence during the course of enquiry. Respondent No.3 and certain others who were charged with the allegations of misconduct admitted their guilt. Based on the evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report stating that the charges were proved. He further opined that the charges were simple in nature. The Managing Director of the petitioner – Union issued a showcause notice. He accepted the charges and imposed major penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 14.07.2000.

4. Aggrieved by the same, a dispute was raised by respondent No.3 along with other employees before the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The dispute was later on transferred to the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Evidence was recorded before the Deputy Registrar. The 3rd respondent in his sworn statement contended that he was assured by the petitioner – Union that he would be reinstated, if he admitted his guilt. Thus, he was persuaded to admit the guilt although he had not committed any such misconduct alleged against him. Petitioner Union, neither led any evidence, nor cross-examined the 3rd respondent before the Deputy Registrar.

5. Based on the evidence on record, the Deputy Registrar found that order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was erroneous and was liable to be set aside. He also recorded a finding that the charges were simple in nature and major penalty of dismissal was wholly unwarranted. Hence, while setting aside the order of dismissal, a direction was issued to the petitioner – Union for reinstatement of the 3rd respondent without backwages. This order was passed on 18.06.2004. It is also seen that respondent No.3 has been denied backwages for the entire period during which he was out of service.

6. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner – Union preferred an appeal in Appeal No.913/2004 before the Tribunal.

7. It was contended before the Tribunal by the petitioner Union that no opportunity to cross-examine the 3rd respondent was afforded by the Deputy Registrar and therefore, there was denial of fair hearing. It was also contended that as the petitioner – Union had closed down its establishment they were not in a position to reinstate respondent No.3. Several other contentions were also urged on merits.

8. The Tribunal has considered the contentions urged by the petitioner – Union and has dismissed the appeal holding that despite sufficient opportunity provided before the Deputy Registrar, the petitioner – Union did not avail the opportunity to lead evidence or cross-examine respondent No.3. It is further found that a memo was filed on 07.05.2004 before the Deputy Registrar by the petitioner – Union which, in effect, disclosed that they did not want to cross-examine respondent No.3, as they had already filed written arguments and that after consulting their advocate they were filing the said memo. The Tribunal has further found that petitioner has not produced any material to