WA/980/2024 of KERALA BANK, Vs O.N. KRISHNAN on 11 April 2025

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the 2nd respondent in W.P.(C)No.4076 of 2023. The writ petition was one filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the 1st respondent herein seeking the following reliefs: “i) Declare that all adverse findings found against writ petitioner in the domestic enquiry proceeding and Exts.P1 to P3 proceedings are unfair, untenable and illegal;

ii) Quash all adverse findings against writ petitioner found by the 1st and 2nd respondents and other authorities in the matter of departmental proceeding discussed in the writ petition, by way of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of direction;

iii) Direct the respondents concerned to pay all the monetary service benefits of petitioner to which he would have otherwise entitled if he had continued in service;

iv) Award adequate compensation towards writ petitioner from the respondents concerned for his sufferings due to the faults of respondents”

2. As per the impugned judgment dated 03.06.2024, the learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P3 order dated 30.12.2022 of the Government and Ext.R2(f) proceedings dated 04.12.2003 of the Executive committee of the appellant Bank and remitted

4 2025:KER:31258 Ext.R2(d) appeal dated 21.10.2003 filed by the 1st respondent to the Board of Directors of the appellant Bank to consider afresh after giving the 1st respondent an opportunity of hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. Being aggrieved, the 2nd respondent Bank filed this appeal.

3. The 1st respondent was an employee of the appellant Bank. While working as a Manager in the Chembu Branch of the Bank he was suspended, and an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer issued a charge memo dated 19.11.2002 to the 1st respondent and as per Ext.P2 domestic enquiry report dated 12.08.2003, nine charges out of total twelve charges mentioned in the charge memo were found against the 1st respondent. Based on the said enquiry report, the 1st respondent was dismissed from service with effect from 09.09.2003 by the president of the bank. Against the dismissal order, the 1st respondent filed Ext R2(d) appeal before the Board of Directors of the Bank on 21.10.2003. The said appeal was relegated to the Executive Committee and by Ext.R2(e) proceedings dated 03.11.2003, the Executive

5 2025:KER:31258 Committee confirmed the dismissal of the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed revision petition before the Government against the dismissal order. By Ext.P3 order dated 30.12.2022 the Government dismissed the revision mainly for the reason that it was filed with a long delay of 18 years and 9 months.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Bank, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per Ext.P2 domestic enquiry report dated 12.08.2003, the majority of the charges against the 1st respondent were found against him. By the proceedings dated 09.09.2003 of the president of the Society, the 1st respondent was dismissed from service. He filed a revision petition before the Government against the disciplinary action taken in pursuance to Ext.P2 report, after 18 years and 9 months. After the amendment to the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and Rules, with effect from 18.05.2010, against the decision of the President, the 1st respondent could have approached the Co-operative Arbitration Court. The

6 2025:KER:31258 Government rightly dismissed the revision filed by the 1st respondent considering the huge delay of 18 years and 9 months, for the condonation of which there is no provision.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent argued that though in the writ petition Exts.P1 to P3 proceedings were challenged, now the 1st respondent filed I.A. No.1 of 2024 seeking permission to amend the relief in the writ petition, so as to convert it as for setting aside Exts.R2(b), R2(e), R2(f) and Ext.P3 orders also. Those orders were passed without hearing the 1st respondent and are ab-initio void since not passed by a competent authority. The Government took a decision under Section 87 of the Act suo motu and dismissed the same without proper application of mind on the merits of the matter.

7. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that in fact, it is true that the Government has no authority to consider the revision under Section 87 of the Act after the amendment to the Co-Operative Societies Act. However, even at the time of filing a revision before the Government, there was a huge delay which is not condonable.

7 2025:KER:31258

8. In the writ petition it was contended by the 1st respondent-petitioner that no order of dismissal was passed by the president of the bank or if passed the same was not communicated to the 1st respondent. It was contended that the 1st respondent was not informed about the existence of Exts.P4 to P7 documents which were very essential to set up his defence in the domestic enquiry. According to the 1st respondent, the government omitted to consider the matter on merits while passing Ext.P3 order in the revision. A fair opportunity was denied to him in the domestic enquiry. A preliminary enquiry report was prepared by the appellant before starting departmental enquiry, the copy of which was not served to the 1st respondent.

9. In the writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the appellant Bank contending that the domestic enquiry was conducted giving the 1st respondent an opportunity to prove his innocence. An additional counter affidavit was also filed by the appellant by producing Exts R2(a) to R2(f) documents. Ext.R2(a) is the memo of charges dated 19.08.2002 issued to the 1st respondent by the appellant. Ext. R2(b) is the order of dismissal

8 2025:KER:31258 dated 09.09.2003 issued by the President of the Bank. Ext.R2(d) is the appeal preferred by the 1st respondent before the Board of Directors. Ext R2(e) is the proceedings dated 03.11.2003 by which the appeal was transferred to the Executive Committee. Ext.R2(f) is the proceedings dated 4.12.2003 of the Executive Committee whereby the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter Ext.P3 order was passed by the Government in the revision filed by the 1st respondent.

10. As per the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules 1969, an appeal against disciplinary action imposing penalty under Rules 198(1)(a) to (c) shall be considered by the Executive Committee or Board of Management and the appeal against imposing penalty under Rules 198(1)(d) to (h) shall be considered by the Board of Management, in respect of the Secretary/Manager to the Chief Executive officer and all employees holding posts higher than that of Senior Clerks/Senior Assistants/First Grade Assistants equivalent to other employees with the same or identical scale of pay. The 1st respondent was working as a Manager of the appellant Bank. However, Ext.R2(f) order in the appeal was passed by the

9 2025:KER:31258 Executive Committee. Holding that Ext.R2(f) decision of the Executive Committee is without jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. However, the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition failed to note that the 1st respondent did not challenge Ext.R2(f) decision of the Executive Committee on the ground of absence of jurisdiction even in Ext.P2 revision filed by him before the Government under Section 87 of the Act.

11. It is trite that normally, a belated service-related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. In Prahlad Raut v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences [ 2019 KHC 6864] the Apex Court noting the delay of 13 years in approaching the Tribunal against the order of removal of the employee held thus: “The High Court rightly held that the law of limitation is founded on public policy. The object of limitation is to put a quietus on stale and dead disputes. A person ought not to be allowed to agitate his claim after a long delay. There can be no doubt that when retiral benefits are withheld without cause, there would be a continuing cause of action. However, when retirement benefits are withheld by way of

10 2025:KER:31258 disciplinary action, the order would necessarily have to be challenged within the period of limitation or alternatively there would have to be sufficient cause for the delay. Once there is cessation of employer - employee relationship by an order of termination, the cause of action would necessarily arise when the order of termination is passed. The forfeiture of pensionary benefits by reason of a punitive order of termination is not a continuing cause of action.

(emphasis supplied)

12. From Ext.P3 order passed by the Government, it is clear that the said revision was filed with a long delay of 18 years and 9 months. No reason seems to have been stated by the 1st respondent for approaching the Government with such a huge delay. Under such circumstances, Ext.P3 order of the Government also cannot be said as illegal.

13. Moreover, after the amendment to the Kerala Co- Operative Societies Act, 1969, with effect from 02.01.2003, the 1st respondent was entitled to approach the Cooperative Arbitration Court to redress his grievance and not the Government. See: Veeranakavu Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd. v. C.Sindhukumari [2025 (1) KHC 421]. The learned Single Judge failed to consider these aspects in its proper

11 2025:KER:31258 perspective and hence the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered with. As far as I.A.No.1 of 2024 filed by the 1st respondent is concerned, such amendments cannot be permitted in the writ appeal, especially when the appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition and not by the petitioner. Hence, we are not inclined to allow the said interlocutory application and accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2024 is dismissed.

In the result, the writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 03.06.2024 in W.P.(C)No.4076 of 2023 and the writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE sks