KOTA SAHAKARI VYAVASAYIKA SANGHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the order dated 02.03.2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ['Tribunal' for short] in Appeal No.88/2014 as well as the order of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Dispute No.308/2012-13 C/w. Dispute No.386/2011-12 dated 03.03.2014 confirmed by the Tribunal.

(2.) It is submitted that the respondent No.3 was serving the petitioner as a Probationary Junior Assistant. The Respondent No.3 was the joint custodian of safe locker of the petitioner, a registered society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959 ['Act, 1959' for short]. It is contended that while the respondent No.3 was serving as a Probationary Junior Assistant in the petitioner society, there were serious allegations inasmuch as irregularity, misappropriation, misconduct and breach of trust against the respondent No.3. The specific allegation herein is that some gold ornaments which were kept in the bank at Kodi Bengre branch as collateral security for loans pertaining to loan account No.326/1045 and 910 were missing during the tenure of respondent No.3 as the joint custodian of safe locker i.e., from 19.07.2010 to 30.07.2011.

(3.) A show cause notice dated 26.10.2011 was issued to the respondent No.3 and other employees involved in the said gold missing incident and explanation was called for. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was initiated wherein the enquiry officer held the third respondent guilty of the charges leveled against him. Consequent to which, the respondent No.3 was dismissed from the service. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.3 has raised a dispute before respondent No.2 under Section 70[1][c] and 2[d] of the Act. The respondent No.2 on analyzing the material facts, passed the order dated 03.03.2014, directing the petitioner ? society to reinstate the respondent No.3 in service within fifteen days from the date of passing of the order and also directed the petitioner to pay the salary and other benefits for the entire period, quashing the order passed by the enquiry officer.