Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Tirupati Co-Operative Town Bank ... vs Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies, ... on 10 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)ALT16
ORDER D.S.R. Varma, J.
1. Heard both the sides.
2. The grievance of the petitioner, which is a Co-operative Bank, is that the earlier Enquiry Officer i.e., the 2nd respondent had dropped all the charges against the 3rd respondent, who is an employee of the bank, which is against the interest of the bank.
3. It appears that subsequently the petitioner ordered de novo enquiry to be conducted by 2nd respondent herein, who has been acting as the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Chittoor. When he refused to conduct the enquiry on the ground that already an enquiry was conducted and the same was dropped, the petitioner-bank filed the present writ petition.
4. The facts in brief are that the 2nd respondent who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer had dropped all the charges against the 3rd respondent, on the ground that there was no co-operation from the bank, which according to the petitioner is not correct. Hence, the petitioner wanted to initiate enquiry afresh for various reasons and hence some writ petitions have been filed before this Court, the facts of which are not relevant for the present purpose.
5. The contention of the counsel for the 3rd respondent is that no writ petition lies against a Co-operative Society in view of the principle laid down by a Full Bench of this Court reported in Sri Konaseema Co-op. Central Bank Ltd. v. N. Seetharama Raju, 1990 (2) ALT 1 = 1990 (1) An.W.R. 675 = AIR 1990 A.P. 171 (F.B.). That principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the bank being the society, itself is aggrieved party and at the request of the writ petitioner only, the 1st respondent appointed its officer as an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry on the charges levelled against the 3rd respondent.
6. However it is brought to the notice of this court by the counsel appearing for the petitioner - bank that the 2nd respondent who has been appointed as Enquiry Officer has proceeded with the enquiry during the interregnum period of disposal of the writ petition and the writ appeal in W.A. No. 838/2000. It is further informed that the 3rd respondent participated in the said enquiry.
7. As pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner - Bank since the Enquiry Officer had completed the major portion of the enquiry, no further orders need be passed in this writ petition.
8. However, it is to be noted that (though) the 1st respondent has no obligation to accede to the request of the petitioner - Bank in appointing an Enquiry Officer. However, if the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that the report of the Enquiry Officer is not satisfactory, it is always open for the competent authority or the disciplinary authority to conduct enquiry afresh. This jurisdiction vested with the employer is inherent. In other words, even in the absence of any rules, the jurisdiction of the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employee cannot be taken away. Therefore, even if the 2nd respondent refuses to conduct an enquiry, it is always open for the petitioner to proceed against the delinquent employee and conduct an enquiry and take appropriate steps, if need be.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, suffice it to direct that the ongoing enquiry be held and completed as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the 3rd respondent.
10. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.