A de novo enquiry against a retired employee is impermissible in law unless permitted by service rules, highlighting the protection of employees' rights post-retirement.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which sets aside the order passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 imposing penalty of dismissal from service.

2. Heard the learned counsels Sri.Nagaraj S. Jain and Sri.Ravi Hegde for the petitioner, learned HCGP Smt.Girija S. Hiremath for the respondent-State and the learned counsel Dr.B.B.Ballari for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

The petitioner is said to have been appointed as a Chief Executive Officer of the 2^nd respondent-Vikas Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”, for short). After rendering about 21 years of service, it transpires that the petitioner's services comes to be terminated by the Board of the respondent Bank owing to certain omissions and commissions. The petitioner challenged the said order of termination before the 1^st respondent, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Joint Register of Co-operative Societies has negated the challenge of the petitioner and rejected the claim. This was challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 24.08.2023 sets aside the order of dismissal from service, on the score that there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice, but reserves liberty to the respondents to hold a de novo enquiry to be in consonance with law. The petitioner, the employee is before this Court being aggrieved upon that portion of the order that permits a de novo enquiry to be conducted against the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel Sri.Nagaraj S. Jain appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 31.05.2020 and the regulations or even law does not permit holding of a de novo enquiry against an employee after his retirement. He would therefore seek quashment of that portion of the order which permits holding of a de novo enquiry against the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that they have not challenged the said order but the Board was willing to settle the dispute between the parties and a settlement proposal was also submitted to the petitioner. The petitioner had in fact agreed for a settlement of a particular amount by his communication, but then chose to prosecute the appeal. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that if he is ready and willing, the Bank is also willing to settle the dispute by the petitioner on the aforesaid amount that was agreed to initially by the petitioner.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. The above-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner's entry into the 2^nd respondent as Chief Executive Officer is on 01.05.1997. Owing to certain omissions and commissions, the petitioner was removed from service on 30.06.2018. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the veracity of the removal from service. The petitioner challenges the said removal before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies rejects the petition before him holding the removal to be valid in the eye of law. This is called in question by the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal after a detailed order, allows the petition, sets aside the order of dismissal, on the ground that it was in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The reasons rendered