Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13077
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SEEMA.A.K – Appellant
Versus
THE PATTANAKKAD BLOCK SMALL SCALE COIR MATS AND MATTINGS PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD – Respondent
WP(C)/18473/2019
SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SMT.MINI V.MENON SRI.M.HARISHARMA SMT.RESMI THOMAS -GP
Disciplinary proceedings must comply with established procedural standards to uphold fairness and legality.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Enquiry - Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules - [Rule 198(3)] - The court found that the disciplinary proceedings lacked procedural integrity, failing to issue a Charge Memo and allowing members of the committee to act as witnesses against the petitioner, thereby violating fundamental principles of fairness.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was dismissed from her position as Secretary of a Society after a disciplinary enquiry that she claimed was flawed due to the absence of a Charge Memo and involvement of committee members as witnesses against her.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the Society violated procedural rules, particularly by having members of the disciplinary committee serve as witnesses, which rendered the enquiry invalid and justified setting aside the dismissal.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary enquiry conducted against the petitioner adhered to the legal requirements of procedure and fairness as outlined in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of a Charge Memo and the participation of the Disciplinary Committee members as witnesses led to the conclusion that the enquiry was fundamentally flawed and not legally sanctioned.
Final Decision: The court set aside the dismissal and associated orders, allowing the Society to initiate proper proceedings if desired.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, while working as the Secretary of the 1st respondent – Society, was imputed to have committed certain misconduct, which led to a disciplinary enquiry. She asserts that the entire enquiry is vitiated because she was not even favoured with a Memo of Charges and that a farce of an enquiry, has illegality writ large on its face since the members of the Statutory Disciplinary Committee offered themselves as witnesses against her, along with the President of the Society, who is the disciplinary Authority. She, therefore, prays that Exts.P1 and P5 be set aside, and the Society be directed to reinstate her in service forthwith.
2. The afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by her learned counsel – Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, were refuted by Sri.Hari Sharma – learned Standing Counsel for the Society, saying that a counter affidavit has been filed on record, detailing the processes followed by his client in issuing the impugned orders. He showed me that Ext.R1(d) resolution was adopted by the Statutory Disciplinary Committee of the Society, appointing the 6th respondent as the Enquiry Officer and that the said Authority settled Ext.R1(c) report, after conducting a detailed enquiry, in which, the petitioner offered herself alone as a witness, without producing any documentary evidence. He asserted that, based on Ext.R1(c), his client was fully empowered to have dismissed the petitioner from service particularly when, through Ext.P4, she had no valid explanation against the imputations. He thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.
3. Smt.Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader, appearing for the 5th respondent, submitted that the controversy projected in this case is between the petitioner and the Society, and that her client has no role to play.
4. I must say upfront that the procedure followed and the proceedings settled by the Society cannot find favour in law because the violations involved in it, as rightly pointed out by the petitioner, are numerous and fatal to any legally sanctioned procedure.
5. I say as afore because, Ext.R1(d) resolution of the Disciplinary Committee records that the 6th respondent was appointed as the Enquiry Officer; and obviously, they were acting under the ambit of Rule 198(3) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘KCS Rules for short). The said Enquiry Officer is stated to have settled Ext.R1(c) Enquiry Report, wherein, rather ineffably, members of the Disciplinary Committee themselves were examined as witnesses, along with the President of the Society. To make matters far worse, subsequent to Ext.R1(c) report of the 6th respondent - dated 02.06.2018, the petitioner was served with Ext.P3 notice by the Disciplinary Committee - which was dated 06.06.2018, asking her to show cause why ‘legally permissible steps/action be not taken against her’ (sic). The petitioner replied to this through Ext.P4, but finding it to be unacceptable, the Society issued Ext.P5 order, dismissing her from service.
6. That said, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Society, they have a completely contrary case, saying that the 6th respondent was appointed, after having found Ext.P4 explanation to be unacceptable. It appears that they have made this averment in answer to the allegations of the petitioner that not even a Charge Memo was issued to her, before the Disciplinary Action was initiated. Interestingly, the Society has not chosen to produce on record any Charge Memo issued to the petitioner, in spite of the specific assertion in the pleadings of the Writ Petition that no such was favoured to her.
7. It is thus luculent that the Society has transgressed every known tenet of procedure relating to disciplinary action, particularly when they admit that members of the Disciplinary Committee themselves were cited and examined as witnesses, along with its President. It is needless to say that this is unheard of; and obviously, the action against the petit
