IMPORTANT POINT
Acquittal in a criminal case does not bar disciplinary action in employment matters, as the standards of proof and objectives differ significantly.

JUDGMENT :

Harisankar V. Menon, J.

These writ petitions are filed by a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for short, the Act) against one of its employees and the other by the said employee against the Co-operative Society.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions, as culled out from WP(C) No.40300 of 2017 are as under:

The 1st respondent entered the service of the petitioner on 26.06.1989 under a quota reserved for employees of the Member Societies, by producing a certificate from the Moongilmada Service Co-operative Bank, which had a membership with the petitioner. Later, some enquiries were carried out by the petitioner which revealed that the 1st respondent never worked with the said Moongilmada Service Co-operative Bank. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Palakkad, also made enquiries wherein the same conclusion was arrived at. On the basis of the said enquiry, the petitioner issued Ext.P1 charge memo dated 29.08.1988, directing the 1st respondent to show cause as to why proceedings may not be initiated against him on the basis of the forged certificate produced by him for obtaining employment as above. The 1st respondent submitted Ext.P2 reply dated 13.09.1988, pointing out that the allegations were baseless, that he had worked with the Moongilmada Service Co-operative Bank from 17.08.1983 as a peon.

3. On the basis of the stand taken by the 1st respondent as above, a domestic enquiry was constituted by the petitioner by appointing an Enquiry Officer. Ext.P3 is the report submitted by the said Enquiry Officer, wherein it is found as under :

i. On a perusal of the Acquittance Roll of Moongilmada Service Co-operative Bank from July 1983 to February, 1986, the name of the 1st respondent does not appear anywhere.

ii. The Attendance Register maintained by the said Co-operative Bank also does not show that the 1st respondent had signed the said register.

iii. 1st respondent's name does not even appear in the Attendance Register.

iv. Though the 1st respondent contended that there was another register for “daily wage employees”, the existence of such register is not proved.

v. Since the appointment order of the 1st respondent issued by the Moongilmada Service Co-operative Bank is as a “temporary peon” and not as a “daily wage employee”, the 1st respondent’s name would not be there in the so called register, even if it is assumed that there is one such register maintained.

vi. The Minutes Book of Moongilmada Service Co-operative Bank for the period from 14.06.1982 to 22.05.1984 does not contain any resolution with reference to the appointment of the 1st respondent, as claimed by him.

vii. Though the witness from the side of the 1st respondent – DW1 – took the stand that there was such a resolution, she admitted that the said resolution might be a “circulated resolution”, however not finding a place in the circulated resolution book.

viii. In the list of employees working with Moongilmada Service Co-operative Bank, furnished before the Enquiry Officer, the details of only seven employees were given, wherein, the petitioner is not seen included.

ix. MW2, an employee with the Moongilmada Service Co-operative Bank from 1972 onwards have stated in evidence that the 1st respondent never worked in the Society.

In the light of the above, the Enquiry Officer found that the 1st respondent created a false document to secure employment in the vacancies reserved against Member Societies quota and therefore he is guilty of the charges levelled by the Management.

4. On the basis of Ext.P3, the petitioner terminated the services of the 1st respondent as evidenced by Ext.P4 dated 28.06.1989. Though an appeal was filed against the termination as above, the same stood rejected as evidenced by Ext.P5.

5. The petitioner also points out that though the 1st respondent instituted ID No.88 of 1992 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the trial