High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-10-14Writ petitions disposed of; inquiry to be compl...

K.R. Meena v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram; Suresh S.N v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram; Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. (W.Ps. Nos. 7953/2019, 8128/2019, 21109/2019)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).7953/2019(T); WP(C).8128/2019(M); WP(C).21109/2019(K)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
Judgment Date: 2019-10-14
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petitions are disposed of with directions that the disciplinary inquiry shall be completed within three months. The petitioners are entitled to the assistance of a legal practitioner during the inquiry if the Inquiry Officer is legally trained, and the bank is free to engage legal counsel as well. All other reliefs sought are subject to the outcome of the ongoing proceedings.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of; inquiry to be completed within three months; entitlement to legal representation during inquiry; retirement-benefit considerations to be determined post-inquiry.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.R. Meena
Suresh S.N

Respondents

Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram
Part Time Administrator/Joint Registrar, Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank, Head Office, Kakkanad, Kochi
Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Head Office, Kakkanad, Kochi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A. Jayasankar
• Manu Govind
• Ashwin Sethumadavan
• Nimmy Johnson
• Rahul SurendrAn
• S. Sabarinadh

Counsels for Respondents

• N. Raghuraj
• Bimal K. Nath

Case Synopsis & Summary

These three writ petitions challenge disciplinary proceedings initiated against retired employees of the Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank. The petitioners contend that since the disciplinary actions were started before retirement, no penal consequences can be imposed post-retirement, and that withholding retirement benefits due to ongoing inquiries is illegal. The court notes the notices initiating disciplinary action were issued in December 2017 with retirement occurring in 2018 (Meena) and 2018 (Suresh), hence the petitions cannot prevent inquiries from continuing. The court recognises that while punishment post-retirement is not permissible, the disciplinary inquiry may proceed to ascertain any loss to the Society and determine the impact on retirement benefits, as provided by Rule 197 (subsequently corrected to Rule 198(7)). The petitioners also seek permission to engage legal counsel since the Inquiry Officer is an advocate; relying on Professor Ramesh Chandra v. University of Delhi, the court holds that a delinquent employee is entitled to legal representation when the Inquiry Officer is legally trained. Ultimately, the court directs the inquiry to be completed within three months and disposes of the petitions, subject to the outcome of the ongoing proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Co-operative Societies Rules, Rule 197Co-operative Societies Rules, Rule 198(7)Rule 7(1) of Rule 197 (as referenced)Rule 198(7)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Audi alteram partem (principle of natural justice)
Authority of inquiry process to determine financial loss to a cooperative society

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that disciplinary proceedings were initiated prior to retirement, so post-retirement penalties are impermissible and retirement benefits cannot be withheld on that basis. They contend that there must be an independent inquiry to determine losses suffered by the Society and that the proceedings should be allowed to complete to assess liability. They seek admission of legal representation since the Inquiry Officer is an advocate, relying on natural justice and the cited case law.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the disciplinary proceedings began before retirement and the inquiry is necessary to ascertain the loss to the Society; the authority may continue the inquiry and ensure recovery where applicable. They rely on the Co-operative Societies Rules to justify that retirement benefits can be withheld during disciplinary proceedings and argue that the inquiry's completion is essential for determining any liability or loss.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Philip C.M. v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Trivandrum, and Others	2018 (3) KHC 780	Distinguished	Court notes the dictum in Philip C.M. regarding recovery from retirement benefits is not applicable here since the bank had not resorted to recovery in the manner discussed there.
Professor Ramesh Chandra v. University of Delhi and Others	2015 KHC 4086	Positive	Apex Court decision cited to support entitlement to legal practitioner where the Inquiry Officer is legally trained.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K.R. Meena v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram; Suresh S.N v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram; Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. (W.Ps. Nos. 7953/2019, 8128/2019, 21109/2019) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 22ND ASWINA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.7953 OF 2019(T)** ## **PETITIONER:** ## **K.R.MEENA,** **PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KUSUMAGIRI P.O, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030, (RETIRED DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIE BANK, KOCHI-30)** **BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN SMT.NIMMY JOHNSON SRI.RAHUL SURENDRAN SRI.S.SABARINADH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** **2 PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR/JOINT REGISTRAR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030** - **3 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. HEAD OFFICE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030 , REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER.** ## **R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ** **SR. GP BIMAL .K. NATH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).21109/2019(K), WP(C).8128/2019(M), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).7953/2019, WP(C).8128/2019, WP(C).21109/2019 **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 22ND ASWINA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.8128 OF 2019(M)** ## **PETITIONER:** **SURESH.S.N** **CC 4/1112 H,MB LANE,CHERLAI,KOCHI-682002, (RETIRED EXECUTIVE OFFICER,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK,KOCHI 30).** **BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN SMT.NIMMY JOHNSON SRI.S.SABARINADH SRI.RAHUL SURENDRAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR/JOINT REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE,KAKKANAD,KOCHI-682030.** - **3 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, HEAD OFFICE,KAKKANAD,KOCHI-682030, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ** ## **BIMAL K NATH SR GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).21109/2019(K), WP(C).7953/2019(T), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).7953/2019, WP(C).8128/2019, WP(C).21109/2019 **3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 22ND ASWINA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.21109 OF 2019(K)** ## **PETITIONER:** - **1 K.R.MEENA, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KUSUMAGIRI P.O, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030, (RETIRED DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOCHI-30)** - **2 SURESH S.N, CC.4/1112 H. MB LANE, CHERLAI, KOCHI-682002, (RETIRED EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK, KOCHI-30)** **BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR** **SRI.MANU GOVIND** ## **RESPONDENT:** **1 REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR/JOINT REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030.** - **3 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, HEAD OFFICE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER.** **R3 BY SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.** **SR. GP BIMAL.K.NATH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).7953/2019(T), WP(C).8128/2019(M), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).7953/2019, WP(C).8128/2019, WP(C).21109/2019 **4** ## **JUDGMENT** **Dated this the 14th day of October 2019** These writ petitions are filed by employees who are now said to be retired from the service of Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. They challenge disciplinary proceedings initiated against them. It is stated that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after their retirement and therefore that no penalty can be imposed on them. 2. Further it was submitted before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that their retirement benefits were withheld on account of disciplinary proceedings and that such withholding of retirement benefits is illegal. It is also submitted before this Court that the Inquiry Officer is a lawyer and therefore the petitioners may be permitted to engage a lawyer since the Inquiry Officer himself is an advocate. 3. In regard to the 1[st] point it is to be noted that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated much before the retirement. Ext.P1 notice was issued to Meena.K.R for disciplinary action was WP(C).7953/2019, WP(C).8128/2019, WP(C).21109/2019 **5** on 14.12.2017. She retired from the service on 28.02.2018 and notice was issued to Suresh.S.N on 14.12.2017. He retired from the service only on 31.07.2018. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with such disciplinary proceedings that were initiated much before the retirement. It may be true that no punishment can be imposed on the petitioners since they are retired from the service. To what extent the disciplinary inquiry finds the petitioners liable is a matter relevant only for the purposes of calculating retirement benefit. Rule 197 of the Co-operative Societies Rules stipulates that no retirement benefit shall be sanctioned to an employee facing disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings appear to have been initiated for the purpose of recovering the loss suffered by the Society. There must be some independent inquiry in regard to the loss suffered by the Society. It is to be noted that employee must be given an opportunity to be heard before invoking such proceedings. Therefore, there is no difficulty in continuing the disciplinary proceedings even after the retirement, at least to the extent of ascertaining the loss suffered by the Society. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on WP(C).7953/2019, WP(C).8128/2019, WP(C).21109/2019 **6** Division Bench judgment of this Court in _**Philip C.M. v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tvm. And Others**_ [2018 (3) KHC 780]. Division Bench of this Court in that case held that recovery from retirement benefits is not possible by invoking the power of the board of the Bank. It is true that such recourse is not possible. The dictum has no application in this matter in as much as the bank had not resorted for recovery. 5. In the light of power under Rule 7(1) of the Rule 198(7) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, the disciplinary inquiry may be relevant at least to the extent to find out the loss which has been incurred by the Society. I find there no scope for interfering with the disciplinary inquiry. 6. The claim of the petitioners for engaging a lawyer, admittedly, is on account of the Inquiry Officer is being an advocate. In consideration of the decision of the Apex Court in _**Professor Ramesh Chandra v. University of Delhi and Others**_ [2015 KHC 4086], I am taking the view that if the Inquiry Officer is a legally trained person, the delinquent employee is entitled for assistance of legal practitioner. In that view of the matter the WP(C).7953/2019, WP(C).8128/2019, WP(C).21109/2019 **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** petitioners are entitled for assistance of legal practitioner. The Inquiry Officer, necessarily, shall accede to the request of the petitioners to be represented through the legal practitioner. Needless to say the Bank is also free to engage a legal practitioner in the proceedings. In the light of such facts and circumstances, the inquiry shall be completed within a period of three months. All other reliefs sought herein will be subject to the outcome of such proceedings. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. **Sd/-** ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **JUDGE** WP(C).7953/2019, WP(C).8128/2019, WP(C).21109/2019 **8** ## W.P.(C) 7953/2019(T) The 'Rule 197' appearing in para 3 of the common judgment dated 14.10.2019 in W.P.(C) Nos.7953/19, 8128/19 & 21109/19 is corrected and substituted as 'Rule 198(7)', and 'Rule 7(1) of Rule 197' appearing in paragraph 5 is corrected and substituted as 'sub rule 7 of Rule 198', as per order dated 27.11.19 in W.P.(C) 7953/19. Sd/Joint Registrar WP(C).7953/2019, WP(C).8128/2019, WP(C).21109/2019 **9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7953/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED**| |---|---| ||**14.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO**| ||**THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED**| ||**19.09.2018 SUBMITTED THE PETITIONER BEFORE**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. EM (1)**| ||**21811/09 DATED 03.07.2010.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED**| ||**05.02.2019 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED**| ||**20.2.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER**| ||**BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| WP(C).7953/2019, WP(C).8128/2019, WP(C).21109/2019 **10** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21109/2019** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.09.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 19.11.2018 OF THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DATED 15.05.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.05.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.** WP(C).7953/2019, WP(C).8128/2019, WP(C).21109/2019 **11** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8128/2019** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 14.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 19.09.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.EM(1)21811/09 DATED 03.07.201O. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESNTATION DATED 05/02/2019 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.02.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL** SAS14/10/2019 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE