High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-08-01Petition allowed; Ext.P8 quashed; liberty to is...

MANOJ JOSE v PARATHODE MILK PRODUCER'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.K 14(D) APCOS, PARATHODE, IDUKKI, AND OTHERS

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No. 7194 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-08-01
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed; Ext.P8 set aside. The court grants liberty to the Society to issue a fresh Memo of Charges and to conduct a proper enquiry. It directs the Managing Committee to decide whether the petitioner should continue to be suspended and, if so, to pay the entire subsistence allowance during the suspension until the enquiry is concluded, within one month from the date of this judgment. The court also leaves open the possibility of reinstatement pending enquiry, as decided by the Society.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; Ext.P8 quashed; liberty to issue fresh memo of charges and conduct proper enquiry; possible reinstatement pending enquiry; subsistence allowance to be paid during suspension within one month from the judgment.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MANOJ JOSE

Respondents

PARATHODE MILK PRODUCER'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.K 14(D) APCOS, PARATHODE, IDUKKI - 685 571, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE.
MANAGING COMMITTEE OF PARATHODE MILK PRODUCER'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.K14(D) APCOS, PARATHODE, IDUKKI - 685 571, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
SUB COMMITTEE PARATHODE MILK PRODUCER'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.K14(D) APCOS, PARATHODE, IDUKKI - 685 571, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT PATTOM P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Binu Paul

Counsels for Respondents

• C. S. Manilal
• C. S. Manu
• S. Nidheesh
• Achut M. Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

Manoj Jose, the Secretary of the Parathode Milk Producer's Co-operative Society (the petitioner), challenges a Memo of Charges (Ext.P6) issued by the Chairman of the 3rd respondent Sub Committee under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. He contends Ext.P6 is incompetent since it was issued by a Sub Committee rather than the Managing Committee, and that Ext.P8, the order removing him from service, was issued without any enquiry. The petitioner had responded with Ext.P7 objections; however, Ext.P8 was nonetheless issued. The respondents’ counsel concedes that no enquiry was conducted because the petitioner had virtually admitted the allegations, and prays for dismissal of the petition. The court notes that the Society proceeded to remove the petitioner without any enquiry, after the petitioner had addressed the charges, and finds the entire procedure vitiated. It invokes Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank v. Joshy Varghese (2020(4) KLT 129) to underscore the need for due process in disciplinary actions. Consequently, Ext.P8 is set aside. The court grants liberty to the Society to issue a fresh Memo of Charges and to conduct a proper enquiry. It also directs consideration of continued suspension, with subsistence allowance during the interim, and even reinstatement pending enquiry, within one month from the judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, Rule 198

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that Ext.P6 Memo of Charges is issued by the Chairman of the 3rd respondent Sub Committee under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and is therefore incompetent, as it is not issued by the Managing Committee. He contends that Ext.P7, his written reply dated 11.01.2021, countered all allegations, and that Ext.P8, the order of removal, was issued without any enquiry, violating the statutory scheme. He submits that removal from service without a proper enquiry breaches due process and the fundamental principles of fair procedure. The petitioner asserts that, given the lack of a formal enquiry, Ext.P8 cannot stand and seeks its quashing, and that the matter should be remitted for a proper charge sheet and investigation, with due opportunity to defend. He also asserts that the delay and the lack of compliance with the statutory procedure cause prejudice and if the Society insists on proceeding, a fresh and valid memo of charges and a full enquiry should be conducted.

Contentions of Respondents

The 1st respondent Society contends that there are serious charges against the petitioner; though no enquiry has been conducted, the petitioner has virtually admitted the allegations, and Ext.P8 was issued accordingly. The respondents argue that the disciplinary action is in line with the statutory scheme and that any deficiency can be remedied in subsequent proceedings. They prayed for dismissal of the writ petition, noting that no enquiry had been conducted because the petitioner had admitted all allegations, and thus no pre-enquiry is necessary. They maintain that Ext.P6 was issued under the Rules and that the Court should not hamper the Society’s functioning. If necessary, a fresh and valid memo of charges and a proper enquiry should be conducted.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank v. Joshy Varghese	2020(4) KLT 129	Positive	Cited as controlling authority to emphasize that due process and proper enquiry are essential in disciplinary actions against a member/employee of a co-operative society; the judgment underpins the setting aside of Ext.P8 for non-compliance with the statutory procedure.

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 MANOJ JOSE v PARATHODE MILK PRODUCER'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.K 14(D) APCOS, PARATHODE, IDUKKI, AND OTHERS 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN`** ## **`MONDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1944`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 7194 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` MANOJ JOSE ``` ``` THAKIDIPURATHU HOUSE, PARATHODE, IDUKKI P. O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 571. ``` ``` BY ADV BINU PAUL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 PARATHODE MILK PRODUCER'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.K 14(D) APCOS, PARATHODE, IDUKKI - 685 571, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE.` - `2 MANAGING COMMITTEE OF PARATHODE MILK PRODUCER'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.K14(D) APCOS` - `PARATHODE, IDUKKI - 685 571, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.` - `3 SUB COMMITTEE PARATHODE MILK PRODUCER'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.K14(D) APCOS, PARATHODE, IDUKKI - 685 571, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.` - `4 DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT PATTOM P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.` ``` BY ADVS. C.S.MANILAL C.S.MANU S.NIDHEESH ACHUT M NAIR ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 ## W.P.(C) No. 7194 of 2021. ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 1 st day of August, 2022 .** While the petitioner was working as the Secretary of the 1[st] respondent - Paranthode Milk Producer's Cooperative Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society for short), he was issued with Ext.P6 Memo of Charges by the Chairman of the 3[rd] respondent - Sub Committee, constituted under the provisions of Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (KCS Rules). 2. The petitioner says that Ext.P6 is incompetent because it has been issued by the Chairman of the 3[rd] respondent Committee and that he had responded to it through Ext.P7 objections; but that without conducting even an enquiry, Ext.P8 has been issued removing him 3 W.P.(C) No. 7194 of 2021. from service. 3. The petitioner thus contends that Ext.P8 is egregiously improper and illegal and prays that same be set aside. 4. The afore submissions of Sri.Binu Paul - learned counsel for the petitioner, were controverted by Sri.C.S.Manilal - learned Standing Counsel for the Society, saying that a counter affidavit has been filed on record detailing the gravity of charges against the petitioner. He however, conceded, to a pointed question from this Court, that no enquiry had been conducted against the petitioner before he was issued with Ext.P8 order and explained that this was because the petitioner had virtually admitted all the allegations. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 4 W.P.(C) No. 7194 of 2021. 5. In reply, however, Sri.Binu Paul - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, as is evident from the explanation offered by his client, namely Ext.P7, every allegation was countered and contested; and therefore, that Ext.P8 order can never be found to be in terms of the statutory scheme. He, thus reiteratingly prayed that this writ petition be allowed. 6. I have considered the afore submissions and have also gone through the materials available on record. 7. It is without doubt that petitioner has been imputed with certain allegations. He has replied to the same, including that the Memo of Charges is incompetent because it has been issued by the Sub Committee and not by Managing Committee; but nothing 5 W.P.(C) No. 7194 of 2021. was done by the Society thereafter, but they proceeded to issue Ext.P8, through which, the petitioner has been removed from service. 8. Obviously, therefore, the entire procedure adopted by the Society will have to be found to be vitiated particularly, in the light of the judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court in **Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank v. Joshy Varghese (2020(4) KLT 129)** Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P8; however, leaving liberty to the Society to decide whether they want to issue a fresh Memo of Charges to the petitioner and to conduct a proper enquiry against him. The Managing Committee will also decide whether 6 W.P.(C) No. 7194 of 2021. petitioner should be continued to be under suspension; and if so, he should be paid the entire subsistence allowance during the period from which he had been placed in such position earlier, until the continuation of the enquriy, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, it is also up to the Society to reinstate the petitioner pending any enquiry, if they are so interested and I leave this to be decided by them appropriately. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** Raj. 01.08.2022. 7 ## W.P.(C) No. 7194 of 2021. ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7194/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - `EXHIBIT P1` - `TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02.09.2020.` - `EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT SOCIETY DATED 26.09.2020.` - `EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 24.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SUB COMMITTEE.` - `EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.10.2020 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.` - `EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.10.2020 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SUSPENDING THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE.` - `EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SUB COMMITTEE DATED 29.12.2020.` - `EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11.01.2021.` 8 W.P.(C) No. 7194 of 2021. ``` EXHIBIT P8 ``` ``` TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.01.2020 BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT SOCIETY DISMISSING THE PETITIONER. ```