Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25120
KERALA HIGH COURT
, J
Thalassery Co-op. Rural Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others
WP (C) No. 11547/2015 | WP (C) No. 21276/2012
For the Appellants: [Names not included]
For the Respondents: [Names not included]
The court upholds that procedural fairness and reasonable delay are critical in revising Co-operative Tribunal decisions, and can assess cases on their merits despite alternative remedies.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Co-operative Societies Act - Section 84 - Revision by Tribunal - The Court examined the reasonableness of the delay in filing the revision as the proceedings began in 1984, highlighting procedural violations and the denial of promotion as vital issues. (Paragraphs 30, 32, 54)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The Court can examine cases on merits despite a delay in filing revisions if procedural failures have led to injustice. The revisional authority's dismissal on limitation grounds was deemed appropriate given the long litigation history. (Paragraphs 41, 52) (
Facts of the case:
The proceedings involved multiple disciplinary actions against the third respondent, leading to appeals and remands from various authority levels, culminating in the Court's scrutiny of the violation of natural justice principles.
Findings of Court:
The domestic enquiry was vitiated by violations, and thus, the punishment imposed could not be sustained.
Issues: Can Ext. P3 order of the Co-operative Tribunal be sustained? Can the Court entertain the writ petition on merits despite the alternative remedy?
Ratio Decidendi: The reasons for delay and procedural fairness are paramount in considering the revision's admissibility.
Result: The writ petitions are dismissed without costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. chronology and procedural history of the case outlined. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. further procedural complications and remands within the case discussed. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. petitioner bank's arguments regarding revision delay and procedural compliance presented. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. third respondent's challenge to petitioner's claims analyzed. (Para 22 , 23 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. discussion on a reasonable time frame for filing revisions highlighted. (Para 30 , 31 , 36 , 41) |
| 6. court affirms it has jurisdiction to hear merits, despite existing delays. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 42 , 43) |
| 7. final decisions on the legality of disciplinary actions and implications for the third respondent. (Para 51 , 54 , 55) |
1. The devil is in detail: thus goes the idiom. The fact of the present case is that the devil of delay is in the detail of chronology—the proceedings having begun in 1984, the lis refuses to die down even after thirty years.
2. In 1984, the third respondent was charged with dereliction of duty; in 1985, a punishment of reversion was imposed; the quasi - judicial proceedings dragged on and still drag on though the third respondent retired from service in 2007. Now, the petitioner Bank, the employer, wants the matter to be remanded to the Co - operative Arbitration Court so that it could have the revision heard on "merits".
3. As observed above, the chronology of events has its own tale to tell: On 19/09/1984, the third respondent, then working as an internal auditor, was transferred to the Evening Branch of the petitioner Bank at Thalasseri. The General Manager through a letter dated 17/10/1984, required the third respondent to prepare the outstanding list of Saving Bank Depositors as on 30/06/1984; the third respondent had to prepare the list by 31/10/1984. The petitioner could not.
4. On 16/11/1984 (in a fortnights' time) the Branch Manager called for an explanation from the third respondent, who, in fact, submitted it on 19/11/1984 (in three days) narrating the practical difficulties in completing the work.
5. On 21/11/1984 (the second day) the management served memo of charges on the third respondent; on 24/11/1984 (again, in two days) the third respondent submitted his written explanation. On 30/11/1983 (within a week) the President of the managing committee issued proceedings providing personal hearing to the third respondent. On 08/12/1984 (in the very next week) the third respondent, again, submitted his defence.
6. On 19/12/1984 (this time, in ten days) the management issued a revised charge memo to the third respondent. This memo included four charges; the earlier memo, however, contained only three charges. On 26/12/1984 (in a week's time) the third respondent submitted his explanation to the revised charges. On 14/01/1984 (in about three weeks) an Enquiry Officer was appointed,
7. On 15/02/1985 (in a fortnight's time) the management, evidently based on the enquiry report, imposed on the third respondent a major punishment: (1) reverting the third respondent to a lower rank; (2) barring promotion to him from the reverted rank for two years. The Enquiry Officer before submitting his report seemed to have disregarded the third respondent's request to permit him to engage an advocate to assist him. It is pertinent to observe that from the date of appointing an Enquiry Officer, the management took some time to impose a major punishment: Two weeks!
8. Aggrieved, the third respondent filed an appeal before the Board of Directors, which partially allowed the appeal on 13/03/1985: It set aside the second punishment—barring promotion for two years in the reverted cadre.
9. It is pertinent to observe that initially assailing the major punishment imposed on him by the petitioner Bank, the third respondent approached the Assistant Registrar by filing ARC No. 340/1984-85. The said authority has, however, dismissed the case as not maintainable. He has, in fact, held that the third respondent s
