ALEXANDER THOMAS, C. JAYACHANDRAN, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
Mattanur Co-Operative Rural Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Co-Operative Arbitration Court – Respondent
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
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 N
A. Sudhakar v. Postmaster General [(2006) 4 SCC 348 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 817] .)
Bokaro Steel Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Bokaro, Steel City
C. Golak Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Commissioner of Police v. Jayasurian & Anr. [(1997) 6 SCC 75]
Delhi Development Authority v. H.C. Khurana
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Gandhi reported in (2013 (1) KLT SN 121 (C.No.106) SC)
Inspector General of Police & Anr. v. Thavasiappan
Managing Director (MD), Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. (ECIL)
M.C.Vasudevan vs. SNDP Yogam [(1958) KLT 48 (DB) =(1958) KLJ 538) = (AIR 1958 Ker. 164)
Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of W.B. [(1970) 3 SCC 548]
Surjit Ghosh v. United Commercial Bank [(1995) 2 SCC 474 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 529 : (1995) 29 ATC 373]
State of U.P. & Anr. v. Chandrapal Singh [(2003) 4 SCC 670]
S.Partap Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1964 SC 72 para 54].
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Ch.Gandhi (2013 (5) SCC 111)
State of Tamil Nadu vs. Pramod Kumar IPS & Anr. [(2018) 17 SCC 677]
State of M.P. & Ors. v. Shardul Singh
Union of India & Ors. v. Anil Kumar Sarkar (2013 (2) KLT SN 29 (C.No.33) SC = (2013) 4 SCC 161)
Union of India & Ors. v. B.V.Gopinath reported in (2013 (4) KLT Suppl. 38 (SC) = (2014) 1 SCC 351).
Yadava v. Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2022 (5) KLT 630 (DB)]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.