V.S. THUSHARA BINDHU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Senior Clerk of the 3rd respondent -Bank, challenges the imposition of punishment, of barring of two increments with cumulative effect, which is confirmed by the Labour Court on a dispute raised as to the justifiability of such punishment.

(2.) THE petitioner has three contentions to challenge the proceedings and punishment. The first contention is that based on a complaint by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted, in which she was imposed with a punishment of warning, which was overturned by the appellate authority and on the very same allegations, the instant proceedings were carried out. The next challenge is with respect of the authority of the President or rather the lack of it to impose a punishment as per Rule 198 of the Kerala Co -operative Societies Rules, 1969. One another ground is that, the officer against whom the petitioner raised a complaint, the Secretary of the 3rd respondent -Bank, has filed a report, based on which the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated.

(3.) THERE can be no objection to Exhibit P6, because the facts stated above would reveal an unnecessary exercise resorted to by the President. Admittedly the enquiry was into the allegations levelled against the Secretary, by the petitioner. The allegations were found to be not true. The matter should have rested there. But, however, the President thought it fit to impose a punishment of warning on the petitioner, who had filed the complaint. If the allegations levelled against the Secretary were found to be untrue and they were in the nature of serious disciplinary laches, then necessarily an enquiry ought to have been conducted against the petitioner. In any event, Exhibit P6 was not challenged by the Bank.