ANNEPPA Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER while discharging duties as a Senior Assistant in Belur Branch of Respondent No. 2 -Hassan District Central Co -operative Bank during the year 2000, it was alleged that he has misappropriated Rs. 40,000/ - by issuing a cash advice dated 31.03.2000 to one Sri H.M. Maheshwarappa, a loanee whose loan account is maintained in the Belur Branch of the Bank, although, no such payment was infact made, leading to initiation of disciplinary proceeding by issue of charge sheet. Yet another similar such incident having come to the light that when on 19.11.1999, petitioner had issued a cash advice to one Sri H.P. Lokesh for having remitted Rs. 18,500/ -, in cash, to be accounted in the loan account maintained by the Belur Branch, though only Rs. 500/ - was infact remitted, led to an issue of an additional charge sheet on 14.06.2002. Domestic enquiry when held in respect of the aforesaid two charges, the Respondent Bank examined four witnesses as MWs. 1 to 4 and introduced in evidence 22 documents marked as Exs. M1 to M22. Petitioner though advanced a plea that his signature found on the cash advice was an act of forgery by the fourth respondent Sri H.S. Mahesh, no evidence was let in, in support of such a defence. The testimony of MW -4 Khaleel Ahamed an employee of the Belur Branch on 31.03.2000 affirming that the Bank Advice dated 31.03.2000 -Ex. M1(a) was not issued by him, but was that of the petitioner, was not subjected to cross -examination, since the petitioner did not chose to cross -examine the said witness. Petitioner also did not seek reference of the disputed signatures on the cash advice receipt to Forensic Expert. The Enquiry Officer returned a finding in the affirmative over charge No. 1 relating to the cash advice for Rs. 40,000/ - in the name of Sri H.S. Maheshwarappa and in the negative over the additional charge of the cash advice for Rs. 18,500/ - in the name of Sri Lokesh. The disciplinary authority on an independent assessments of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and by order dated 28.10.2002 Annexure -A imposed the punishment of termination from service.

(2.) THAT order when called in question in a proceeding under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co -operative Societies Act in JRM:DDS:Misc:09:2002 -03 was set aside by order dated 25.10.2008. The Managing Director of the Bank carried the said order in Appeal No. 307/2009 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('KAT' for short) whence by order dated 28.11.2013, on a re -appreciation of the material on record and the evidence both oral and documentary held that the Joint Registrar of Co -operative Societies had committed all illegality in not noticing relevant facts and evidence in its support in proof of the first charge and recorded findings which are neither legitimate nor legal, to absolve the petitioner of the charge of issuing the cash advice on 31.03.2000 for Rs. 40,000/ - in favour of Sri H.M. Maheshwarappa. The KAT also noticed the explanation offered by the petitioner to the charge sheet that the signatures on the cash advice, though was in his name nevertheless was an act of forgery by one Sri H.S. Mahesh, the fourth respondent, which fact was not proved. In addition, KAT observed that the testimony of MW -4 remained unchallenged, while the petitioner took no efforts to establish his defence by having the documents and signatures there on to be subjected to forensic opinion.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence on record substantiates the fact that the petitioner was not guilty of the first charge and hence, KAT fell in serious error in dislodging the finding recorded by the Joint Registrar of Co -operative Societies.