Madanamohan P.S. vs Joint Registrar of The Co-Operative Societies (General) and Others

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner challenges his suspension from the respondent Society. Admittedly, the petitioner was the Secretary of the fourth respondent Bank and on a direction issued by the President to produce the photocopy of the files relating to the loan sanctioned in the respondent Society, a reply was submitted as per Exhibit. P2 pointing out the expenditure involved in making photocopies of the documents which were available at the office of the Society and which the President could verify at any time. On such a reply being submitted before the President, the Secretary was suspended as per Exhibit. P2. On the suspension being continued without even a memo of charges being issued, the petitioner was before this Court challenging the suspension by the above writ petition filed on 14.07.2013. The respondent Bank filed a counter affidavit pointing out that there are allegations of misappropriation on the ground of bogus sanctioning of loans and the same has to be enquired into by a committee duly appointed. The assertion of the petitioner is that no charge sheet has been issued till date.

The respondent Bank has filed an application under Rule 154 of the High Court Rules seeking for production of certain documents. On a perusal of the said documents, it is seen that Exhibit. R4(r) is a show cause notice issued by the President on 13.08.2013 to which the petitioner had replied by Exhibit. R4(u). After considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, it is also seen that the President has taken a decision to entrust a sub-committee to look into the alleged financial irregularities committed by the erstwhile Secretary, who was placed under suspension by Exhibit. P2. The sub-committee was constituted and had conducted three sittings as is evident from R4(w). The petitioner contends that he has not been issued with the proceedings of the President or the sub-committee and that the attempts of mediation had never been effected.

Admittedly, the President is the appointing authority of the Secretary and is also the disciplinary authority who is entitled to issue show cause notice on any alleged misconduct committed by an employee. True, the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, by Rule 198 prescribe an enquiry to be conducted by a sub-committee. The constitution of the sub-committee is also evident from Exhibit. R4(b), though the petitioner has a claim that he was never intimated of the same. From the facts disclosed with respect to the proceedings against the petitioner, it is now evident that a sub-committee has been constituted and the sub-committee also had decided to issue a memo of charges to the petitioner. The sub-committee having decided to issue a memo of charges necessarily an enquiry ought to be conducted and the petitioner has to be duly participated in the same. Hence what remains is the service of the show cause notice and the conduct of the enquiry as such. The sub-committee appointed by the fourth respondent Bank shall finalize the memo of charges within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The sub-committee shall also intimate the petitioner along with the memo of charges the authority who has been entrusted with the conduct of the enquiry. The enquiry so entrusted or carried on shall be concluded within three months from the date of issuance of the charge sheet. The disciplinary authority shall consider the report of the enquiry after receiving the representation of the petitioner, if the report is against the petitioner and conclude the same within a month from the date of receipt of the enquiry report. The delinquent employee shall be afforded with every opportunity to make his defence and the enquiry shall be continued and concluded following the principles of natural justice. Considering the health condition of the petitioner, as agreed between the parties, the venue of the enquiry shall be the premises of the S.N.D.P. Sagha Yogum No. 816, Thumbode and the petitioner shall be allowed to be represented by an Advocate in the proceedings. The above directions are issued only on the facts and circumstances emanating in the instant case.

The writ petition is disposed of. Parties left to suffer their respective costs.