Proper adherence to procedural rules is essential in disciplinary actions against employees.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are a Co-operative Society and its President. The 1^st respondent was admittedly employed in the petitioners’ Society. On the allegation that there were certain discrepancies in the maintenance of stock with regard to manure and rice, it was alleged that the 1^st respondent, being in charge of the same, was required to remit the dues to the 1^st petitioner Society. The Society found that there was a stock deficit exceeding Rs. 13 lakhs. Consequently, the 1^st respondent was suspended from service pursuant to Ext.P3 dated 18.07.2017.

2. Subsequently, the managing committee of the 1^st petitioner constituted a sub-committee to enquire into the various allegations raised against the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent filed detailed objections, as evidenced by Ext.P8. Based on the report of the sub-committee at Ext.P6, the 1^st respondent was terminated from service on 17.07.2018 pursuant to Ext.P9, issued by the 2^nd petitioner – the President of the 1^st petitioner Society.

3. The 1^st respondent challenged the termination by filing an appeal before the Arbitration Court. The Arbitration Court, by its award at Ext.P13 dated 10.11.2022, held that the procedure prescribed under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules , 1969 (for short “Rules”) was not strictly followed in terminating the 1^st respondent’s service. It further held that the disciplinary action was based on an “invalid enquiry,” rendering the termination irregular and illegal. Accordingly, the Arbitration Court set aside the termination and directed that the 1^st respondent be reinstated in service with all service benefits and salary arrears.

4. Aggrieved by Ext.P13, the Society preferred an appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, as Appeal No.30 of 2023. The Tribunal, by its order at Ext.P18, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the award of the Arbitration Court. The Society, seeking to challenge Ext.P18, issued by the Co-

operative Tribunal, have instituted the captioned writ petition.

5. I have heard Sri. M. Sasindran, the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Sri. T.R. Harikumar, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent herein.

6. Two issues arise for consideration in this writ petition. The first issue concerns the sustainability or otherwise of the findings contained in Ext.P18, the order of the Tribunal, which confirmed the award at Ext.P13. This Court notes that a detailed procedure has been prescribed under the provisions of Rule 198 of the Rules regarding the imposition of punishment on an employee.

7. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the

1^st respondent was terminated from service solely on the basis of the enquiry report at Ext.P6, which was finalised by the committee constituted under Rule 198 (2A) of the Rules.

8. At the same time, having regard to the contents of Exts.P13 and P18, this Court observes that there has been a violation of the mandate under Rule 198 (2) of the Rules. On account of this violation, the subsequent constitution of the sub- committee and the proceedings that led to the termination of the 1^st respondent were also flawed, as rightly found by the Arbitration Court and confirmed by the Tribunal.

9. The contention raised by the petitioners before the Tribunal regarding the validity of the entire proceedings was considered in detail by the Tribunal. The Tribunal ultimately held that the entire proceedings requires to be set aside, as it was admittedly the case that no charge memo or charge sheet had been served on the 1^st respondent. When that be so, the subsequent constitution of the disciplinary committee was also improper, and theref