Karnataka High Court
The Member Secretary vs The Registrar Of Co Operative on 28 February, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 7273 OF 2012 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN
THE MEMBER SECRETARY
COMMON CADRE COMMITTEE
FOR EMPLOYEES OF PCARD BANKS
ALUR VENKATA RAO ROAD,
CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE-560018
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRA MOHAN.J.G, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA
ALI ASKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001
2. SRI B A SHIVANNA
S/O LATE B.R.APPANNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT SRI.VEERABHADRESHWARA NILAYA
NO.59/C, SANGAMESHWARA EXTENSION
1ST STAGE, II CROSS,
HASSAN 573201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.M. BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R2
SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDERS OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIS IN KARNATAKA, BANGALORE THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 22.12.2011 AS PER
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner-Committee, which is a disciplinary authority of the employees of PCARD banks is before this Court being aggrieved of the order of the 1st respondent-Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who set aside the order of dismissal passed against the 2nd respondent, who was working as Supervisor in the Holenarasipura PCARD Bank, Hassan District.
2. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the 2nd respondent is now 80 years old and the allegations against the 2nd respondent dates 3 back to the year 1995-96. As could be seen from the original order of dismissal passed on 27.05.2003, by the petitioner Committee, there are about 13 charges alleged against the petitioner. The charges against the petitioner is that he committed irregularity in the matter of sanctioning the loan to the beneficiaries, committed irregularity in recovery of the loans; he committed irregularity in the matter of purchase of cows, bullocks, sheep etc.; he committed irregularities in purchase of bullock carts and distribution of the cattle, bullock carts; he did not ensure that the signatures of the beneficiaries are obtained after the distribution of the cattle, sheeps, bullock carts etc.
3. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has further pointed out from the order dated 27.05.2003 passed by the petitioner-Committee that no specific allegations of the financial loss having caused to the PCARD Bank is mentioned and at the same time in the operative portion of the order also there is an omnibus 4 direction to recover the loss caused by the 2nd respondent herein alongwith 18% interest, without quantifying the amount.
4. On an earlier occasion, the 2nd respondent was before this Court in W.P.No.7252/2009 calling in question the impugned order passed by the petitioner- Committee and a subsequent order passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 20.12.2008. This Court by order dated 23.09.2011 held that the orders passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies runs to about 8 pages and it cannot be said that it is a considered order. It was noticed that though the Registrar makes a reference to the records and the rival contentions, however, without appreciating the material on record and only by referring to the finding of the enquiry report, the order has been passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It was noticed that the Registrar of Co- operative Societies having been vested with the power 5 to decide the matter and both the parties have lead evidence in the matter, there was a need for Registrar to formulate the points for consideration and to appreciate the material on record with reference to the rival contentions, the Registrar was required to give his finding. It was noticed that such course of action was not undertaken by the Registrar. It was also held that the Registrar, while performing quasi judicial functions was required to decide the matter objectively and it was found that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for consideration and disposal afresh, keeping in view the observations made in the order.
5. Thereafter the parties were heard by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and thereafter the impugned order dated 22.12.2011 was passed, holding that there was no specific allegation or 6 evidence which was available before the Disciplinary Authority to show as to who were the persons to whom the 2nd respondent disbursed the loan amount although they were not members of the PCARD Bank. There was no material or evidence available before the Disciplinary Authority to come to a conclusion that the 2nd respondent was vested with the power and functions and by misuse of which the 2nd respondent had committed the misconduct as alleged in the charge memo. There is no specific finding on the basis of the evidence tendered by the witnesses on behalf of the Bank which would justify the allegations made against the 2nd respondent.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner points out from charges No.12 and 13 that there is a specific allegation against the 2nd respondent that he has caused financial loss to an extent of Rs.9,15,418/- and the 2nd respondent is individually liable to pay the bank a sum of 7 Rs.3,79,139/-. Further as per the charge No.13, the 2nd respondent has failed to deposit a sum of Rs.7,500/- received from one Sri D.N.Manchegowda, S/o Nanjegowda and has failed to issue receipt for having received the said amount.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned AGA for the 1st respondent-Registrar of Co-operative Society and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that after remand of the matter by this Court, the 1st respondent-Registrar of Co-operative Society has given a detailed finding in respect of each of the allegations made against the 2nd respondent, the evidence lead by the petitioners to substantiate charges against the 2nd respondent and the infirmity in the order dated 27.05.2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is clear from the impugned order of the Registrar that there is lack of evidence to conclusively prove that the 2nd respondent 8 is responsible for the loss caused to the PCARD Bank. The material available on record is not sufficient to conclusively prove the allegations against the 2nd respondent. No material is available on record to show that the powers and functions of the 2nd respondent, who was working as a supervisor in PCARD Bank extends to the alleged misconduct on the part of the 2nd respondent. It could be seen from the impugned order that the allegation was infact made against the then Board members and other functionaries along with the 2nd respondent. In so far as the charge No.12 is concerned, the Registrar has found from the report of the enquiry officer that the charge of causing financial loss to an extent of Rs.9,15,418/- has not been proved. In so far as the charge No.13 is concerned, discrepancy is found in the evidence lead against the 2nd respondent herein. Having noticed all these infirmities, the 1st respondent Registrar of Co-operative Societies has rightly come to 9 a conclusion that the order of dismissal passed against the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained.
8. As noticed earlier, the 2nd respondent is aged nearly about 75 years if not 80, even according to the cause title furnished by the petitioner- Committee. The 2nd respondent has attained the age of superannuation nearly two decades ago and he has not been able to enjoy the fruits of his service rendered to the PCARD Bank.
9. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no fault could be found in the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent- Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Consequently, this writ petition stands dismissed.
10. Having regard to the age of the 2nd respondent, it is hereby specifically directed that the retiral benefits of the 2nd respondent shall be paid to the 2nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible and at 10 any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY/