The judgment establishes the Registrar's authority under R.176 to intervene in disciplinary actions to ensure compliance with the legal framework, emphasizing the importance of principles of natural justice and the limitations on the Registrar's power to interfere with factual findings.

C.S. Rajan, J.

Petitioners are the President and the Secretary of the Co-operative,. Society. The second respondent was the Branch Manager of the Co-operative Bank. A punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the second respondent by the Sub Committee constituted to take disciplinary action. This was by Ext. P-1. The second respondent filed an appeal before the Director Board of the Society. By Ext. P-2 the appeal was dismissed. Against Exts. P-1 and P-2 the second respondent filed Ext. P-3 petition before the first respondent under R.176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'). In Ext. P-3, apart from disputing the correctness of the factual findings of the disciplinary authority, the following contention has been taken:

"The proceedings of the Appellate Authority is illegal and it lies no sanctity of law. The Members of the Disciplinary Committee who passed the Resolution dismissing the petitioner from service has also participated in the hearing of the appeal and passing the order in the appeal. The illegally constituted appellate authority failed to consider the petitioner's memorandum of appeal on merit and deliberately failed to apply its mind while dealing the petitioner's appeal and disposed of the appeal in a most based manner."

The Society has filed a counter affidavit before the first respondent evidenced by Ext. P4. In Ext. P-4 the above allegation has not been denied. The first respondent passed Ext. P-5 order rescinding the resolution of the disciplinary sub committee dismissing the second respondent from the service. The subsequent resolution of the Board of Directors of the Society upholding the decision of the disciplinary subcommittee was also rescinded. The first respondent in Ext. P-5 came to the conclusion that the charges proved against the second respondent are rather flimsy and the punishment inflicted on him is a grave one and could not be imposed for such flimsy charges. The first respondent also came to the conclusion that the participation of members of the sub committee headed by the President of the Society in the deliberations by the Board of Directors while considering the appeal is also illegal.

2. Shri K. Ramakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction in exercising the power conferred on him under R.176 of the Rules in rescinding the two resolutions passed by the Sub-Committee of the Society and the Board of Directors of the Society. The learned counsel cited a Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in Pudupariyaram Service Co-operative Society v. Rugmini Amma (1996 (1) KLT 100). In the above case two questions arose. The first question was whether the failure to constitute a sub committee to take the decision in a disciplinary matter is contrary to the provisions of the Rules and therefore, whether the Registrar was justified in interfering with the resolution of the Society. The second question was whether a second opportunity of being heard must be afforded to the delinquent employee of the Co-operative Society after receipt of the enquiry report. On the first question the judges were unanimous in holding that the failure to constitute a sub committee is an infraction of the rules. On the second question, one learned judge constituting the Division Bench differed and held that there need not be any second opportunity to be extended for a delinquent employee after receipt of the enquiry report. The learned counsel relied on paragraph 16 of the judgment which is as follows:

"16. Learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that third respondent has no jurisdiction to interfere with a reasoning adopted by the enquiry officer on merits in reaching the findings. I find force in the said contention that a different tactual finding or conclusion was not expected from the Joint Registrar while exercising power under R.176 of the Rules."

Therefore, it was contended