Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1715
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. SUJATHA, J.
KOTA SAHAKARI VYAVASAYIKA SANGHA HEAD OFFICE, UGAMA KOTA KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 576201- PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - RESPONDENTS
WRITPETITIONNo.19062/2018(S–RES)
Decided On : 7-01- 2020
For the Appellant : SRI ANANDARAMA K., ADV.
For the Respondents: SMT.A.R.SHARADAMBA, AGA SRI N.R.KRISHNAPPA, ADV. FOR R3;
The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and evidence in domestic enquiries, and upheld the principle that disciplinary proceedings are not affected by subsequent criminal proceedings.
Headnote:
Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 - Misappropriation - Sections 70[1][c] and 2[d]
Fact of the Case:
The respondent No.3, a probationary junior assistant in a cooperative society, was accused of misappropriation and breach of trust. A domestic enquiry found him guilty and he was dismissed from service. The respondent raised a dispute under Sections 70[1][c] and 2[d] of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the missing gold was noticed after the respondent had handed over charge to another official, and thus held that the misappropriation during the respondent's tenure was not proved. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order to reinstate the respondent and quash the dismissal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the domestic enquiry, the treatment of the respondent compared to other accused, and the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the missing of gold after the respondent had handed over charge indicated his non-involvement, and upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the procedural and evidentiary aspects.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the order to reinstate the respondent and quash the dismissal.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 02.03.2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ['Tribunal' for short] in Appeal No.88/2014 as well as the order of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies in Dispute No.308/201213 C/w. Dispute No.386/201112 dated 03.03.2014 confirmed by the Tribunal.
2. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 was serving the petitioner as a Probationary Junior Assistant. The Respondent No.3 was the joint custodian of safe locker of the petitioner, a registered society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 ['Act, 1959' for short]. It is contended that while the respondent No.3 was serving as a Probationary Junior Assistant in the petitioner society, there were serious allegations inasmuch as irregularity, misappropriation, misconduct and breach of trust against the respondent No.3. The specific allegation herein is that some gold ornaments which were kept in the bank at Kodi Bengre branch as collateral security for loans pertaining to loan account No.326/1045 and 910 were missing during the tenure of respondent No.3 as the joint custodian of safe locker i.e., from 19.07.2010 to 30.07.2011.
3. A show cause notice dated 26.10.2011 was issued to the respondent No.3 and other employees involved in the said gold missing incident and explanation was called for. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was initiated wherein the enquiry officer held the third respondent guilty of the charges leveled against him. Consequent to which, the respondent No.3 was dismissed from the service. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.3 has raised a dispute before respondent No.2 under Section 70[1][c] and 2[d] of the Act. The respondent No.2 on analyzing the material facts, passed the order dated 03.03.2014, directing the petitioner – society to reinstate the respondent No.3 in service within fifteen days from the date of passing of the order and also directed the petitioner to pay the salary and other benefits for the entire period, quashing the order passed by the enquiry officer.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the respondent No.2, the petitioner had filed appeal No.88/2014 before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Tribunal after hearing the parties, was pleased to dismiss the appeal. Hence, the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the procedure prescribed by the judicial pronouncements has not been followed by the respondent No.1. No preliminary issue was framed inasmuch as deciding whether the enquiry conducted was in accordance with law or not. Without framing such a preliminary issue, the respondent No.2 proceeded to hold that the enquiry was vitiated. Further, allowed the parties to examine the witnesses which is ab initio illegal. Nextly, it was contended that the evidence let in by the parties before the respondent No.1 was not available before the enquiry officer as such the earlier enquiry report could not be held to be bad in law. Thirdly, it was contended that report of the enquiry officer could not have been interfered with, by the respondent No.2 in a cavalier manner ignoring the material aspect that all the three accused including the respondent No.3 [accused No.1] had admitted the guilt and remitted the amount. The gold kept in the safe locker was missing during the tenure of the respondent No.3 holding charge of the said safe locker as a joint custodian. All these relevant aspects are not properly appreciated by the Tribunal while confirming the order of the respondent No.2. The Tribunal being last fact finding authority was obligated to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at a finding by independent application of mind. No such exercise has been done by the Tribunal. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:
1. The Hassan Co-Operative Milk Producers’ Societies Union Limited V/s. The Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Mysore, W.P.No.255
