Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C. JAYACHANDRAN, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
Mattanur Co-Operative Rural Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The Co-Operative Arbitration Court – Respondent
WA NO. 934 OF 2022, W.A.No. 975 of 2022, W.A.No. 1022 of 2022, W.A.No. 1041 of 2022, W.A.No. 1047 of 2022, W.A.No. 1243 of 2022, W.A.No. 757 of 2023, W.A.No. 965 of 2022, W.A.No. 1043 of 2020, W.A.No. 1045 of 2020, W.A.No. 938 of 2022, W.A.No. 1305 of 2022, W.A.No. 1308 of 2022, W.A.No. 1503 of 2022
Decided on : 03-08-2023
The case involves multiple writ appeals referred to a Full Bench for reconsideration of the authority to issue memos of charges under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules in disciplinary proceedings against employees of co-operative societies. [judgement_subject] (!) (!) [1][2][3]
The Full Bench was constituted following a Division Bench order dated 12.4.2023 doubting the correctness of an earlier view that Rule 198(2B) does not empower the disciplinary sub-committee to frame memos of charges, holding such power exclusively with the appointing authority (managing committee). (!) (!) [1]
Facts in W.A. No. 934/2022: Co-operative Arbitration Court set aside disciplinary action relying on prior ruling, holding disciplinary sub-committee lacked authority to issue memo of charges; writ petition dismissed, leading to appeal. (!)
Rule 198 governs disciplinary actions; pre-2010 amendment allowed managing committee to both initiate and finalize actions, challenged for negating appeal rights under Rule 198(4). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Post-2010 amendment inserted sub-rules (2A) and (2B): Committee must constitute disciplinary sub-committee (not including President) to inquire into charges, either itself or via external agency. (!) (!) (!)
Table under Rule 198(3) designates authorities for penalties: For higher-rank employees (Secretary/Manager and above), President/Chairman for minor penalties (a)-(c), sub-committee/executive committee for major penalties (d)-(h); for other employees, Secretary/Manager for minor, President for major. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Appellate authorities under Rule 198(4): Executive Committee/Board for higher-rank employees' minor penalties, President/Board for others. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Managing committee (appointing authority under Rule 182(2)) cannot impose penalties as it is appellate authority under Rule 198(4), to preserve appeal rights; penalties by designated authorities in Rule 198(3). (!) (!) [59][60][61][62][63]
"Charges" broader than "memo of charges/charge sheet": "Charges" means allegations of acts/omissions; "memo of charges" is formal document specifying allegations for defense. (!)
No explicit provision in Rule 198 mandates appointing authority alone to issue memos of charges; silence allows other competent authorities, including superiors or controlling authorities. (!) [84]
Disciplinary sub-committee (under Rule 198(2A)/(2B)) same as sub-committee in Rule 198(3); empowered to inquire into charges and, as penalty authority for certain cases, to frame/issue memos of charges as first step in inquiry process. (!) (!) (!) [62
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reference for reconsideration of previous judgment. (Para 1) |
| 2. facts of the main case involved (w.a.no. 934/2022). (Para 3) |
| 3. introduction of involved advocates and parties. (Para 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. general provisions regarding the kcs act and relevant rules. (Para 5) |
| 5. discussion on findings and authority of the disciplinary sub-committee. (Para 10 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. procedural norms regarding disciplinary charges. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. jurisdiction and powers regarding issuance of charges/memos. (Para 24 , 30 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. implications of the apex court rulings on procedural fairness. (Para 36 , 38 , 40 , 41) |
| 9. clarification on disciplinary actions in cooperative societies. (Para 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 10. final conclusions regarding authority to frame charges. (Para 50 , 52 , 64) |
| 11. overruling previous decisions and explanation of future implications. (Para 86 , 87) |
ORDER :
Alexander Thomas, J.
The afore captioned cases have been placed before this Full Bench on the basis of the order dated 12.4.2023 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in those cases, whereby it has been held that the view taken by an earlier Division Bench in Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joshy Varghese [2020(4) KLT 129 (DB) = 2020 KHC 5394 = 2020 (3) KLJ 474], requires serious re-consideration and hence these cases have been referred to the Full Bench for an authoritative determination of the issues mentioned in the said reference order, in exercise of the powers under Sec. 7 of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT . In Kodanchery's case supra [2020(4) KLT 129 (DB)], rendered on 13.1.2020, the Division Bench has considered the provisions contained in Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies (KCS) Rules, framed under the Kerala Co-operative Societies (KCS) Act, in the matter of disciplinary action affecting the employees of co-operative societies, more particularly sub rules (2A) and (2B) of Rule 198 and it has been held therein, more particularly in para No.5 thereof, that the said provisions, more particularly Rule (2B) does not empower the disciplinary sub committee mentioned therein to frame memo of charges against the delinquent employee and that the said power to frame memo of charges is exclusively vested with the appointing authority (viz., managing committee of the co-operative society). The referring Division Bench, in the afore reference order dated 12.4.2023, after considering the various sub rules of Rule 198 and case laws has held that Kodanchery's case supra [2020(4) KLT 129 (DB)] has rightly held that there is a distinction between the words, “charges” and “charge sheet/memo of charges” and that the words appearing in Rule 198 (2B), after the words, “inquire into”, are “the charges” and not “charge sheet/memo of charges” and that “charges” means alleged specific acts or omission said to have been committed by an employee, whereas “charge sheet/memo of charges” is the memorandum of charges drawn up which delineates the specific allegations of acts or omission, which the delinquent will have to defend. Hence, the referring Division Bench has taken the view that the power conferred on the disciplinary sub committee, as per Rule 198(2B), is the power to “inquire into the charges” and that therefore, the said power would also include the power to take into account the various allegations against the delinquent and then draw up a specific memorandum of charges/memo of charges/charge sheet against the delinquent, so that he is apprised, in clear terms, as to what are the specific allegations which he has to defend in the said inquiry process. It is on this premise that the referring bench has held that the decision in Kodanchery's case supra [2020(4) KLT 129 (DB)], taking the view that the disciplinary sub committee has no power even to issue memo of charges and that it can only conduct inquiry into the memo of charges issu
AI
Charge memorandum issued without prior disciplinary authority approval is non est; post-facto ratification invalid where statute mandates prior approval before issuance.
The charge-sheet issued by an authority not competent to impose the penalties specified in the rules, without the approval of the competent authority, is void ab initio.
Charge memo for major penalty must be approved by competent disciplinary authority; issuance by minor penalty authority without approval vitiates proceedings.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to specified regulations; lack of defined misconduct requires clarity for fairness.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
