Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56934
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
TONY JACOB – Appellant
Versus
MUNDAKAYAM AIDED SCHOOL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. K-374 – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 5330 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 6747 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.V.BABY, VINEETH P.BABY, SHAJI THOMAS, MOHAN PULIKKAL, JEN JAISON, THOMASKUTTY SEBASTIAN
For the Respondents: P.V.BABY
Procedural flaws in disciplinary proceedings can breach natural justice, warranting judicial intervention to ensure fair hearings and proportionality of punishment.
Headnote:(A) Co-operative Societies Act, Kerala - Regulations relating to disciplinary procedures - The procedures for domestic enquiries are not statutory; mere violation of such procedures does not amount to violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 8, 11)
(B) Administrative Law - The High Court’s jurisdiction to interfere with Tribunal awards is limited to examination of pertinent legality; further reappraisal of evidence is not permitted. (Paras 9, 10)
(C) Proportionality - The Tribunal failed to address the issue of proportionality of punishment in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Secretary of the Co-operative Society. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was dismissed from service after a disciplinary enquiry, which he argued was flawed due to lack of authority of the convening officer. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case back for reconsideration was contested as being inconclusive of the merits of the petitioner’s appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal did not adequately address the complaint regarding natural justice in the disciplinary hearing; thus, its order was set aside.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's decision to remand the case was justified and whether procedural errors vitiated the enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the principles of natural justice were breached, and the Tribunal's oversight of significant procedural flaws warranted judicial intervention.
Result: The judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded for fresh consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of procedural issues and complaints regarding disciplinary actions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. discussion on merits of appeal and arguments from both sides. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's examination of procedural adherence and principles of natural justice. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. final assessment of tribunal's judgment and necessary judicial intervention. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. mandate for tribunal to reassess and consider all facts without procedural oversight. (Para 17) |
| 6. conclusion to remand case for fresh consideration. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT
These writ petitions are filed by both the appellant and the respondent before the Co-operative Tribunal, challenging the Tribunal's order. Parties are hereinafter referred to by their status as per WPC No. 5330 of 2024. The short facts required for the disposal of these writ petitions are as follows.
2. The petitioner in WP(C) No.5330 of 2024 was working as the Secretary of the 1st respondent from 11.08.1997 onwards. On 10.02.2016, he was issued a show cause notice alleging misconduct. Finding that the reply filed by the petitioner was unsatisfactory, he was suspended by the President of the Society on 18.02.2016. The petitioner has a case that the President does not have the authority to suspend, and there was no ratification of the suspension by the Board of Directors. A Disciplinary Sub Committee was constituted with the Vice President of the Society as the Convenor. On 08.03.2016, the Convenor of the Sub Committee issued a charge memo to the petitioner, and an Enquiry Officer was also appointed. The charge memo was not accompanied by the statement of allegations. It is also the case of the petitioner that neither a witness list nor a document list was submitted, and no copy was also served on the petitioner. Four witnesses were examined during the enquiry, and 7 documents were marked on the side of the management. Petitioner had submitted his explanation to the charge memo before the Enquiry Officer. The Vice President, who was the Convenor, also acted as the Presenting Officer in the enquiry. On 16.08.2016, the enquiry report was submitted, finding that all charges raised against the petitioner stood proved. On 22.08.2016, the petitioner submitted his objections to the report and requested not to accept that report. The Sub Committee, with the Vice President as the Convenor, accepted the report and proposed the punishment of dismissal. By 28.09.2016, the Sub Committee issued orders of dismissal with effect from 24.08.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that the law does not permit the Prosecutor and the Judge to be the same person. The petitioner submitted an appeal before the Managing Committee. The Managing Committee, which met without the necessary quorum, converted the order of dismissal into compulsory retirement. The petitioner filed Ext.P1 ARC No.18/2017 on 13.03.2017. Ext.P2 dated 22.11.2017 is the written statement filed in the case. On 15.10.2019, a preliminary award was passed, finding that the enquiry was proper. Thereafter, on 24.03.2022, the Ext.P4 award was passed, remanding the case to the Managing Committee for fresh consideration, finding that the earlier order was without the necessary quorum. The Court also directed that the proportionality of the punishment should be considered.
3. After the remand, the 1st respondent claimed to have issued a notice on 16.05.2022 to the petitioner, to appear for a hearing. On directions issued by this Court, the 1st respondent has placed before this Court the documents to prove the service of such notice on the petitioner. Ext.P12 produced in WP(C) No.6747 of 2024 is the postal receipt dated 17.05.2022 and Ext.P13 is the copy of the acknowledgment card signed by the petitioner and received back. As per the notice dated 16.05.2022, the petitioner was directed to appear on 27.05.2022. The petitioner did not appear. It is stated that an order was issued on the very same day. However, the copy of the order
