VISHWAKARMA SAHAKARA BANK LTD., BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND THE PRESIDENT, VISHWAKARMA SAHAKARA BANK LTD. Vs. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND SRI SADANANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions arise out of the order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 476/2012. By the said order, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by Vishwakarma Sahakara Bank Limited - petitioners in W.P. No. 47134/2013 against the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co -operative Societies (for short, 'the Joint Registrar') in the dispute raised by the petitioner in W.P. No. 49610/2013. For the sake of convenience, petitioner in W.P. No. 47134/2013 namely Vishwakarma Sahakara Bank Limited is referred to as 'the employer' and the petitioner in W.P. No. 49610/2013 namely 'Sadananda' is referred to as 'the employee'.

(2.) SRI Sadananda was working as General Manager in Vishwakarma Sahakara Bank Limited. Certain allegations of misconduct were made against him. A disciplinary enquiry was held. Out of 10 charges leveled against him, only three charges were held partly proved. The report of the Enquiry Officer was served on the employee. He submitted his reply. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved by this order, a dispute was raised by the employee before the Joint Registrar under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act, 1959.

(3.) THIS order was challenged by the employer before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the Joint Registrar by dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal has issued a direction to the employer to reinstate the employee within 15 days from the date of its order along with full back wages with effect from the date of his compulsory retirement and to treat the period of punishment as period in service. Being aggrieved by the order passed dismissing the appeal, the employer filed W.P. No. 47134/2013. Whereas contending that the employee has not been extended all the consequential benefits including the period for which he was kept under suspension W.P. No. 49610/2013 is filed by the employee.