High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2007-03-27Writ petition disposed of with directions to pr...

Mattathur Panchayath Cottage Match Industrial Co-operative Society No.R.40, Paddy, Kodakara, Thrissur District v. State of Kerala, The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mukundapuram Taluk, and Alphonsa Varghese

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 4227 of 2006(C)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. Siri Jagan
Judgment Date: 2007-03-27
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of with directions: the Government orders (Exts.P4 and P5) are not interfered with; petitioner is permitted to continue disciplinary proceedings afresh from the stage of furnishing the enquiry report, and complete the proceedings within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions to proceed afresh with disciplinary proceedings from the enquiry stage and complete within two months; government orders not interfered with.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mattathur Panchayath Cottage Match Industrial Co-operative Society No.R.40, Paddy, Kodakara, Thrissur District

Respondents

The State of Kerala
The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Alphonsa Varghese

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• G. Sreekumar (Chelur)

Counsels for Respondents

• Ranjith Thampan
• Smt. P.A. Anitha
• Sri C.A. Chacko
• Sri P.K. Ravikrishnan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Mattathur Panchayath Cottage Match Industrial Co-operative Society No.R.40, Paddy, Kodakara, Thrissur District, petitioner, initiated disciplinary proceedings against its third respondent (the society’s Secretary) for alleged misconduct. The Enquiry Officer found her guilty and the petitioner dismissed her. The third respondent challenged the dismissal first before the Project Officer and the District Registrar of Khadi and Village Industries Societies; those authorities declined to interfere. Thereafter, the Government issued Ext.P4 (order setting aside the punishment and directing reinstatement) and Ext.P5 (order confirming Ext.P4 and permitting de novo disciplinary proceedings). The petitioner contends these orders were issued without hearing and, more importantly, that the disciplinary proceedings violated Rule 198(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules by not constituting a sub-committee to conduct the proceedings, thereby denying the third respondent a right to file an appeal under Rule 198(4). The Government’s powers under the Co-operative Societies Act were also pressed. The Court noted that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted without a sub-committee, but held that Exts.P4 and P5 need not be interfered with in its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Citing President, Pudupariyaram Service Co-op. Society v. Rugmini Amma (1996(1) KLT 100), the court affirmed the sub-committee requirement and directed the petitioner to restart proceedings afresh from the enquiry report stage, to be completed within two months."

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, Rule 198(3)Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, Rule 198(4)Co-operative Societies ActConstitution of India, Article 226

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sub-committee requirement under Rule 198(3) is mandatory for disciplinary proceedings; failure to constitute it breaches the rules and affects the right of appeal under Rule 198(4).
Negation of appeal provision under Rule 198(4) when sub-committee is not constituted (as established in President, Pudupariyaram Service Co-op.Society v. Rugmini Amma).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that although the Government could exercise powers under the Co-operative Societies Act, Exts.P4 and P5 were issued without hearing and without compliance with Rule 198(3) for constituting a sub-committee, thereby violating the rights of the respondent to appeal under Rule 198(4). The petition also contends that the Government’s interference with the disciplinary process is not warranted where procedural defects exist, and that the matter should proceed de novo in accordance with the rules.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the Government can exercise its powers under the Co-operative Societies Act to remedy defects in disciplinary proceedings. They argued Exts.P4 and P5 are proper and that the absence of a sub-committee justifies government intervention; they urged restraint from interference under Article 226, given the procedural irregularities acknowledged by the petitioner.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
President, Pudupariyaram Service Co-op.Society v. Rugmini Amma and others	1996(1) KLT 100	Positive	The decision holds that punishment taken by the Managing Committee without a sub-committee contravenes Rule 198(3)/(4) and undermines the appeal right; this supports the Rule-198 compliance argument in the present case.

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 Mattathur Panchayath Cottage Match Industrial Co-operative Society No.R.40, Paddy, Kodakara, Thrissur District v. State of Kerala, The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mukundapuram Taluk, and Alphonsa Varghese 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 S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2007 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1929 WP(C).No. 4227 of 2006(C) ------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------- MATTATHUR PANCHAYATH COTTAGE MATCH INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO.R.40, PADDY, KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESENT PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. ALPHONSA VARGHESE, AGED 45, W/O.VARGHESE, PARANILAYAM HOUSE, MURIKUNGAL DESOM, VELLIKULANGARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN SMT.P.A.ANITHA SRI.C.A.CHACKO BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## APPENDIX (WP(C) NO.4227OF 2006) ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: - Ext.P1: Copy of the order passed by the Enquiry Officer dated 14.3.2003. - Ext.P2: Copy of the order of the Project Officer, Office of the Registrar, Khadi Industries Co-operative Society, Thrissur dtd.4.11.2003. - Ext.P3: Copy of the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.123 of 2004 dated 4.6.2004. - Ext.P4: Copy of the order issued by the first respondent dtd.30.3.2005. - Ext.P5: Copy of the Government Order issued by R1 dtd.25.11.2005. P.A.to Judge. -True Copy- ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, J. -----------------------------------WP(C) NO. 4227 OF 2006 - C ------------------------------------Dated this the 27th day of March, 2007** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is a co-operative society. On allegations of mis-conduct, the petitioner initiated disciplinary proceedings against the third respondent. The enquiry was conducted and the third respondent was found guilty and the petitioner imposed on her the punishment of dismissal from service. The third respondent was the Secretary of the society. Challenging the said dismissal, the third respondent first filed a petition before the Project Officer and the District Registrar of Khadi and Village Industries Societies, Thrissur, but he declined to interfere with the punishment imposed on the third respondent. Thereafter, the third respondent filed a petition before the Government and the Government, by Ext.P4 order, set aside the punishment and directed reinstatement of the third respondent, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner-society to conduct a de novo disciplinary ## **WP(C) NO.4227 OF 2006** ## **:-2-:** proceedings in conformity with the rules and procedures. Alleging that this order was passed without hearing the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.123 of 2004 in which by Ext.P3 judgment, the Government was directed to hear the petitioner and pass orders afresh. Pursuant to the same, the Government passed Ext.P5 order confirming Ext.P4 order. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P4 and P5 orders in this writ petition. From Ext.P4, I find that the Government has found that the Society has not constituted a sub-committee for conducting the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner which resulted in the denial to the third respondent a chance to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority who is the Managing Committee, since the Managing Committee itself passed the order of punishment. 2. Of course, the petitioner would contend that the Government has now powers under the Co-operative Societies Act to interfere with the disciplinary ## **WP(C) NO.4227 OF 2006** ## **:-3-:** proceedings. Leaving aside that question, in so far as it is an admitted fact that the disciplinary proceedings against the third respondent were without constituting a sub committee as required under Rule 198(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, I am of the opinion that the orders of the Government need not be interfered with in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ## 3. This Court had in **President, Pudupariyaram Service Co-op.Society** v. **Rugmini Amma and others** (1996(1) KLT 100) held that the decision imposing punishment taken by the Managing Committee instead of the sub-committee who was competent to take action under the rules will amount to negation of appeal provision provided under Rule 198(4) and therefore, failure to constitute the sub-committee is contrary to the provisions of the rules. 4. That being so, I do not think that the findings in Exts.P4 and P5 should be interfered with by me. ## **WP(C) NO.4227 OF 2006** ## **:-4-:** However, I make it clear that it would be open to the petitioner-Society to continue the disciplinary proceedings afresh from the stage of furnishing of enquiry report to the third respondent and take appropriate action as contemplated under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. Proceedings, if any, initiated pursuant to the above direction shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. **S. SIRI JAGAN, Judge** Mbs/ ## **WP(C) NO.4227 OF 2006** **:-5-:** **K.THANKAPPAN, J** ----------------------------------------Crl.Appeal NO. OF 2001 ----------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T ## **WP(C) NO.4227 OF 2006** **:-6-:** DATED:13-02-2007 ## **WP(C) NO.4227 OF 2006** **:-7-:**