Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Co Operative Consumers ... vs Sri.S.Siddaramu on 5 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:41
WP No. 10513 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 10513 OF 2020 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS
FEDERATION
NO.4, PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD
CHAMARAJPET
BENGALURU-560018
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI ARALI SURYAKANTA
2. JANATHA BAZAAR
MDCC BANK BUILDING
Digitally MANDYA-562101
signed by REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
KIRAN
KUMAR R SRI K N ANAND
Location: ...PETITIONERS
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.S. SIDDARAMU
S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
MAJOR
CHIKKAMANDYA VILLAGE
GOPALAPURA POST
MANDYA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562101
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:41
WP No. 10513 of 2020
HC-KAR
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
SRI S. SIDDARAMU
S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
4TH CROSS, HANIAMBADI MAIN ROAD
HOSAHALLI
MANDYA CITY-562101
2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES (C AND M)
ALI ASKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560052
3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES
DEPARTMENT OF CO OPERATION
MANDYA CITY
MANDYA DISTRICT-562101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (NOC)
SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL
FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2020
IN APPEAL NO.265/2012 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
******
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:41
WP No. 10513 of 2020
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 05.03.2020 passed in Appeal No.265/2012 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:
3. Respondent No.1 was appointed temporarily as a Typist-cum-clerk by petitioner No.1-Federation and deputed to petitioner No.2-Janata Bazar. On 27.06.1981, respondent No.1 was appointed as a Junior Sales Assistant by petitioner No.1-Federation and deputed to petitioner No.2 Jantha Bazar. The service of respondent No.1 as a Typist-cum-clerk was unsatisfactory. He was working as a Junior Sales Assistant during October 1981. There was a shortage of stock in a sum of ₹4,089.62 and same was admitted by respondent No.1, a sum of -4- NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR ₹3,273.90 was recovered from the salary of respondent No.1 in monthly installments upto December 1983.
4. It is alleged that on 11.02.1984, respondent No.1 committed a robbery in a jewellery shop at Mandya and absconded. The Police registered a Criminal Case in Crime No.50 of 1984 against respondent No.1. Respondent No. 1 was absconding from 11.02.1984 and remained unauthorisedly absent for the duty. Later, respondent No.1 surrendered before the police on 27.02.1984 and he was enlarged on bail. Meanwhile, respondent No.1 was kept under suspension pending enquiry. A charge sheet was issued against respondent No.1 containing two charges, namely, (i) shortage of stock of ₹4,089.62 and (ii) unauthorisedly remaining absent for duty.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR
5. An enquiry was held and found that the charges levelled against respondent No.1 were proved. Respondent No.1 was dismissed from service on 10.04.1987.
6. Respondent No.1 raised a dispute before the Labour Court in I.D. No.142 of 1988-89. The Labour Court rejected the claim of respondent No.1 for lack of jurisdiction.
7. Respondent No.1 raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The petitioners filed objections to the claim petition. Respondent No.1 examined himself as PW1 and marked nine documents as Exhibits P1 to P9. The Manager of the petitioner-Federation was examined as RW1 and marked 44 documents as Exhibits R1 to R44. Respondent No.3 / Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed an order holding that respondent No.1 is guilty of two charges regarding shortage of -6- NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR stock and unauthorised absence, and rejected the claim of respondent No.1.
8. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2011 passed by respondent No.3, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal in Appeal No.262 of 2012, before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. During the pendency of the said appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, respondent No.1 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 12.05.2015. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by respondent No.1 and granted all the benefits by setting aside the order of termination vide Order dated 09.03.2016.
9. The petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, filed a writ petition in W.P. No.12775 of 2017. This Court allowed the writ petition vide -7- NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR Order dated 09.12.2019 and remitted the matter to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for fresh disposal.
10. After remand, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal passed the impugned Order dated 05.03.2020 allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.1 and directed the petitioners to pay monetary benefits to respondent No.1.
11. The petitioners aggrieved by the impugned order, filed this writ petition.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 had admitted shortage of Rs.4,089.62 between October, 1981 and December 1983 and the petitioners have recovered a sum of Rs.3,278.90 and the balance recoverable was Rs.815.72. Further, respondent No.1 was involved in a robbery incident of Jewellery shop on 11.02.1984 -8- NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR and the police had filed Crime No.50/1984 and he remained unauthorizedly absent for duty. The petitioners have conducted an enquiry and provided sufficient opportunity to respondent No.1. He also submits that respondent No.1 raised a dispute after 19 years. The said aspect was not adequately appreciated by the learned Tribunal. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error in granting 9% interest. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the Tribunal considering the entire material on record has rightly passed and impugned order. He submits that, prior to the filing the writ petition, respondent No.1 had approached the Labour Court, and the Labour Court directed respondent No.1 to approach the authority with proper jurisdiction, as the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by him. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR The dispute raised by respondent No.1 was pending before the Labour Court for 19 years. Later on, respondent No.1 filed this filed the instant appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal immediately and there is no delay in filing appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Hence, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not hold any water.
15. He submitted that the petitioners have recovered the amount from respondent No.1. He also submitted that respondent No.1 submitted an application for leave before petitioner No.2 on 11.02.1984, 19.02.1984 to 23.02.1984, 24.02.1984 to 01.03.1984. He also submitted that respondent No.1 has denied that he was involved in a robbery case alleged to have taken place on 11.02.1984. He submitted that there is no explanation from the petitioners regarding the custody of the documents and for non-production of documents about the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR absence of respondent No.1 for the duties from 11.02.1984 to 01.03.1984. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference. Hence on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
16. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
17. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.1 was working as a Junior Sales Assistant in petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.1 issued a demand notice dated 16.02.1987 noticing that respondent No.1 is responsible for the shortage of stocks worth of ₹4,089.62 for the period from July 1982 to March 1983.
18. It was also alleged that respondent No.1 had remained unauthorizedly absent for duty. The
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR petitioners have initiated a domestic enquiry against respondent No.1 on the charges that respondent No.1 has caused a heavy stock shortage amounting to ₹4,089.62 while he was working as a Junior Sale Assistant in Jantha Bazar, Mandya and remained unauthorisedly absent for the duty with effect from 11.02.1984, and caused inconvenience to the customers as well as, for the resultant loss of business to the Institution. The petitioners initiated an enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer.
19. The enquiry officer conducted an enquiry, and recorded his finding that the charges levelled against respondent No.1 are proved.
20. The Appointing Authority, based on the enquiry report, issued a show-cause notice to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 replied to the show cause notice denying the allegations.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR
21. The Appointing Authority, without considering the reply submitted by respondent No.1, passed an order of termination from service vide order dated 18.04.1987.
22. Respondent No.1, aggrieved by the order of termination, approached the Labour Court, Mysore in IID No.142 of 1988, which was pending for 19 years till 2006.and ultimately, the Labour Court, Mysore rejected the claim of respondent No.1 for want of jurisdiction.
23. Respondent No.1 raised a dispute before respondent No.2 under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act. Respondent No.1 was examined as PW-1 and marked 9 documents as Exhibits P1 to P9. In rebuttal, the Manager of the petitioners-Federation was examined as RW1 and marked 44 documents as Exhibits R1 to R44.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR
24. Respondent No.3 passed an order upholding the order of dismissal and rejected the claim of respondent No.1 vide Order dated 19.09.2011.
25. Respondent No.1 aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.3 preferred an appeal in Appeal No.262 of 2012 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru.
26. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 and quashed the order of termination.
27. The petitioners, aggrieved by the Order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.1277 of 2017. This Court, vide Order dated 19.11.2019 allowed the writ petition and quashed the Order dated 09.03.2016 and remitted the matter to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for fresh disposal within three months.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR
28. After the remand, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal passed the impugned order allowing the appeal of respondent No.1 and quashed the order of termination and the order passed by respondent No.3 and directed the petitioners to pay all the benefits to which respondent No.1 is entitled, along with interest at the rate of 9% from 06.06.2020.
29. The petitioners contended that respondent No.1 was involved in a robbery case and a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.50 of 1984 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
30. From the perusal of the charge memo, it is clear that there was no charge framed against respondent No.1 regarding his involvement in a criminal case in Crime No.50 of 1984. The charge memo discloses that, the charges levelled against respondent No.1
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR are only regarding shortage of stock amount and remaining unauthorizedly absent from the duty.
31. Respondent No.1 contended that he had submitted an application for leave subsequent to 11.02.1984 to 01.03.1984. However, the petitioners have not produced any record/documents to establish that respondent No.1 has not submitted an application for sanction of leave and no explanation is offered by the petitioners for non-production of the documents. The Appellate Tribunal has drawn an adverse inference against the petitioners for non- production of documents, as the documents are in the custody of the petitioners.
32. It is settled law that, writ courts cannot re-
appreciate the evidence in service matters and act as appellate bodies, but must confine themselves to examining if the decision-making process was fair and within the jurisdiction, interfering only in cases
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR of perversity, illegality, or violation of natural justice, not to substitute their own factual findings. The said view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Singh v. Khacheru and others in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.34407-34408 of 2013 disposed of on 02.01.2025, wherein it has been held as follows:
" 17. It is well-established principle that the High Court cannot, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a finding of facts unless the authorities below had either exceeded its jurisdiction or acted perversely."
33. Considering the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Singh (referred supra), the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has considered the entire material on record and has rightly reversed the order passed by respondent No.3 and set aside the order of termination. The
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR Karnataka Appellate Tribunal arrived at a finding of facts and had not exceeded its jurisdiction or acted perversely.
34. Insofar as filing of appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal after 19 years, it is pertinent to note that, prior to the filing of appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, respondent No.1 had approached the Labour Court. The matter was pending for 19 years before the Labour Court and the Labour Court rejected the claim of respondent No.1 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. After the rejection of claim petition filed by respondent No.1, respondent No.1 had approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal immediately. There is no delay on the part of respondent No.1 in approaching the appellate authority. Respondent No.1 had approached the wrong forum, challenging the order of termination.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR
35. Section 14 of the Limitation Act allows excluding of time from limitation when a party diligently prosecutes a case in another court (or forum) that lacks jurisdiction or is otherwise unable to entertain it, provided it is for the same relief/matter.
36. Considering Section 14 of the Limitation Act, focus on excluding the time spent in bona fide, but flawed, legal proceedings (e.g., wrong Court, lack of jurisdiction) from limitation periods, emphasizing due diligence and good faith. Respondent No.1 has approached the Labour Court and prosecuted the claim for 19 years bona fide and the Labour court rejected the claim of respondent No.1 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Thus, there is no delay in approaching the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
37. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, while allowing the appeal directed the petitioners to pay the amount
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR noted in paragraph No.4 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount.
38. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there will be a financial burden on the petitioners. The learned counsel for respondent No.1, on instruction, submits that respondent No.1 is ready to forego the interest.
39. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.1, the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru needs to be modified.
40. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER (I) The writ petition is allowed in part;
(II) The order passed by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal,
Bengaluru in Application No.265 of 2012 directing the petitioners
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:41 WP No. 10513 of 2020 HC-KAR to pay interest i.e. clause (4) in the operative portion, is hereby quashed;
(III) The rest of the order passed by the Tribunal is maintained.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6