Kerala High Court
K.V.Raghavan vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 17 January, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
W.A. Nos 1810 and 1816 of 2024
2025:KER:4728
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 27TH POUSHA, 1946
WA NO. 1810 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2024 IN WP(C) NO.40300 OF
2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
RAGHAVAN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.VELUCHAMY,KUPPYANCHALLA KALATHIL
HOUSE,K.K.PATHY,CHITTUR,PALAKKAD-678101., PIN - 678101
BY ADVS.
K.MOHANAKANNAN
H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3:
1 PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK MANAGING COMMITTEE
P.B.NO.21,PALAKKAD,REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL
MANAGER(IN-CHARGE)., PIN - 678001
2 KERALA CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT(NORTHERN)
KOZHIKODE-673001
3 KERALA CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
SRI.M SASINDRAN, STANDING COUNSEL
SMT.VINITHA B, SR.G.P
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2025
ALONG WITH W.A NO.1816 OF 2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.A. Nos 1810 and 1816 of 2024
2025:KER:4728
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 27TH POUSHA, 1946
WA NO. 1816 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2024 IN WP(C) NO.25184 OF
2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
K.V.RAGHAVAN,AGED 60 YEARS,S/O. K. VELUCHAMI, AYYAPPAN
CHALLA, KK PATHY, P.O. CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.,
PIN - 678101
BY ADVS.
K.MOHANAKANNAN
A.R.PRAVITHA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU CIVIL STATION COMPLEX,
PALAKKAD, KERALA 678 013.
2 PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.B. NO. 21, PALAKKAD,
KERALA - 678 013.
3 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, P. B. NO. 21,
PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT., PIN - 678001
SRI.M SASINDRAN, STANDING COUNSEL
SMT.VINITHA B, SR.G.P
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2025 ALONG
WITH W.A NO.1810 OF 2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.A. Nos 1810 and 1816 of 2024
2025:KER:4728
COMMON JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The appellant in these Writ Appeals is the 1st respondent in
W.P.(C) No.40300 of 2017 and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.25184
of 2019. Challenging the common judgment dated 16.10.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions, the present
Writ Appeals have been filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter
referred to in this judgment in their status as they were in
W.P.(C)No.40300 of 2017.
2. The facts that can be discernible from the writ petitions
are as under:
(i) The 1st respondent was appointed as Peon in the quota
reserved for employees of the Member Societies of the petitioner
Bank on 20.06.1984. To secure the job, he produced a certificate
showing that he was an employee of Moongilmada Service Co-
operative Bank, a society that has membership in the petitioner
Bank. Later, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the 1st
respondent was not an employee of Moongilmada Service Co-
W.A. Nos 1810 and 1816 of 2024
2025:KER:4728
operative Bank. A notice followed by Ext.P1 charge memo dated
29.08.1988 was issued to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent
submitted Ext.P2 reply dated 13.09.1988 to the charge memo.
Dissatisfied with the explanation, a domestic inquiry was
conducted by appointing a retired Judicial Officer as the enquiry
officer. In Ext.P3 report dated 24.04.1989, the Inquiry Officer
found that the 1st respondent obtained the job by producing a false
document and he was not really employed in Moongilmada Service
Co-operative Bank. Then the 1st respondent was removed from
service as per Ext. P4 order dated 28.06.1989 of the petitioner
Bank.
(ii) After dismissal, a criminal case was also registered
against the appellant for cheating and fraud, which ended in
conviction. However, he was acquitted by this Court as per Ext.P6
judgment dated 06.11.2006 in Crl.A.No.152 of 2010. After Ext.P6
judgment, the appellant filed Ext.P7 representation dated
25.07.2011 before the President of the petitioner Bank seeking
reinstatement. Later, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.25875 of 2011 and obtained a direction to the President of the
petitioner Bank to consider Ext.P7 representation. As per Ext.P8
W.A. Nos 1810 and 1816 of 2024
2025:KER:4728
order dated 14.05.2012, the representation of the 1st respondent
was rejected. Thereafter, the 1st respondent approached the
Kerala Co-operative Arbitration Court (Northern), Kozhikode, by
filing A.R.C.No.39 of 2012 and as per Ext.P11 award dated
18.08.2015, the Co-operative Arbitration Court, directed the
petitioner Bank to reinstate the 1st respondent in service with all
service benefits and back wages. Challenging Ext.P11, the
petitioner Bank approached the Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal,
Thiruvananthapuram, by filing an appeal with a delay condonation
petition to condone the delay of 322 days. However, as per
Ext.P14 order dated 30.10.2017, the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal,
dismissed the appeal, holding that the delay was not properly
explained. Challenging Ext.P11 award and Ext.P14 order, the
petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.40300 of 2017 before this Court.
Aggrieved by non-granting of back wages in spite of direction in
Ext. P11 award, the 1st respondent filed W.P.(C) No.25184 of 2019.
After considering the rival contentions and the materials on
record, the learned Single Judge, as per the impugned common
judgment ordered the writ petitions, allowing W.P.(C)No.40300 of
2017 and dismissing W.P.(C)No.25184 of 2019. However, the 1 st
W.A. Nos 1810 and 1816 of 2024
2025:KER:4728
respondent is permitted to make an appropriate representation
before the petitioner Bank, pointing out the facts and figures and
seeking extension of appropriate benefits, taking into account the
period he had served the petitioner Bank, within a period of one
month. The petitioner Bank is directed to consider the
representation and pass appropriate orders, purely as a case of
compassionate claim and not based on any legal right available to
the 1st respondent. Being aggrieved, the parties are again before
this Court with these writ appeals.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Palakkad District Co-
operative Bank, and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that
the appellant was dismissed from service based on Ext.P3 inquiry
report. However, he was subsequently acquitted by this Court as
per Ext.P6 judgment dated 06.11.2006 in Crl.A.No.152 of
2010. The learned Single Judge did not properly consider this
aspect while holding that the 1st respondent is not entitled to claim
reinstatement as a matter of right, and he can seek benefits on
W.A. Nos 1810 and 1816 of 2024
2025:KER:4728
compassionate grounds alone.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Bank-the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.40300 of 2017, would argue that as per
the impugned judgment the learned single judge rightly found that
Ext.P11 judgment of the Co-operative Arbitration Court
(Northern), Kozhikode, is erroneous and passed without any
justification and hence no interference of this court is warranted
on the impugned judgment.
6. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was an employee of the
petitioner Bank with effect from 20.06.1984. It is also not in
dispute that he obtained employment reserved for employees of
Member Societies. Later, on finding that the document produced
by him to prove his employment in a member Society as a false
document, he was issued with Ext.P1 charge memo dated
29.08.1988. Though the 1st respondent submitted Ext.P2 reply
dated 13.09.1988, in the inquiry conducted, it was found that he
secured employment by producing a false document.
7. He was found guilty of criminal charges when tried before
the Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, for
W.A. Nos 1810 and 1816 of 2024
2025:KER:4728
creating such false documents and obtaining employment. He was
acquitted by this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment dated 06.11.2006
in Crl.A.No.152 of 2010. In the impugned judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge, the effect of such an acquittal in a criminal
case on disciplinary action was taken note of and relying on the
judgment of Apex Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd [(2005) 7 SCC 764] held that the degree of
proof required in the departmental enquiry is not equal to the
degree of proof required in a criminal proceeding. The acquittal of
the 1st respondent in the criminal case, therefore, does not ipso
facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary
jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge further relied on the
judgments of the Apex Court in A.P.SRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya
[(1997) 2 SCC 699] as well as Pravin Kumar v. Union of
India and others [(2020) 9 SCC 471] in support of the said
proposition. On analysing the pleadings and materials on
record, the learned Single Judge found that the Co-operative
Arbitration Court (Northern), Kozhikode, erred in decreeing the
suit filed by the 1st respondent and directing the 2nd respondent to
reinstate him in service with all service benefits, including back
W.A. Nos 1810 and 1816 of 2024
2025:KER:4728
wages. However, considering the length of service of the
1st respondent and considering his age, the learned Single Judge
directed the 2nd respondent to consider the request, if any, that
will be made by the 1st respondent on compassionate grounds.
8. In Ext.P3 enquiry report, it was categorically found that
the name of the 1st respondent was not found in any of the records
of the Moongilmada Service Co-operative Bank. It was found by
the Inquiry Officer that though the 1st respondent produced a
resolution for obtaining employment it was not seen in the minutes
book or in the circulated resolution book of the Moongilmada
Service Co-operative Bank. The list of employees produced by
the Moongilamada Service Co-operative Bank before the Inquiry
Officer did not contain the name of the 1st
respondent. Considering all these facts and evidence, the Inquiry
Officer found that the 1st respondent obtained employment by
producing a false document. The perusal of Ext.P3 enquiry report
would show that the enquiry was conducted in a proper manner
and a right finding was arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. The Co-
operative Arbitration Court (Northern), Kozhikode failed to
appreciate Ext.P3 enquiry report in its proper perspective while
W.A. Nos 1810 and 1816 of 2024
2025:KER:4728
passing Ext.P11 award. However, the learned Single Judge
considered all these aspects and set aside Ext.P11 award.
9. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record
and the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the settled
position of law discernible from the judgments cited, we find no
sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge.
In the result, the writ appeals fail and are accordingly stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
Sks
