C KUNHIRAMAN Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO OP SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is at present working as Inspector with the 3rd respondent Bank. During 1992, petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground of dereliction of duty and negligence. The 3rd respondent appointed one P. Ramachandran, an Advocate of Kanhangad Bar as enquiry officer to inquire into the alleged misconduct. Petitioner was not found guilty. After the enquiry, report, the 3rd respondent by order dated 19-10-1992 ordered reinstatement of the petitioner and the period of suspension of the petitioner was ordered to be treated as duty and he was paid salary for that period. At that time, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies was functioning as the Administrator of the Bank. More than one and half years after 'the closure of this disciplinary proceedings, the Executive Committee which has come into power subsequently, in a ' meeting held on 29-7-94, suo motu decided to re-open the case against the petitioner. The Executive Committee decided to conduct a second enquiry, against the petitioner. The Committee also decided to appoint the 4th respondent as the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner filed Ext. P8 petition before the first respondent seeking cancellation of the second enquiry. That is pending. Petitioner prays for setting aside the second enquiry.

(2.) I heared petitioner's counsel, counsel for the 3rd respondent and also the Government Pleader. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in 1992. One Advocate Sri.P. Ramachandran was the enquiry Officer. He conducted enquiry and filed Ext. P3 report. The enquiry officer held that the charges against the petitioner were not true: The report of the enquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service with all service benefits. Ext. P4 dated 19-10-92 is the proceedings by which the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service. On 8-8-94 petitioner was informed that the bank decided to conduct an additional enquiry with regard to the theft of gold ornaments pledged in the bank. Ext. P5(a) is the copy of the resolution passed by the Executive Committee of the bank. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed appeal before the Registrar and the Registrar by Ext. P10 order rejected the petitioner's appeal. Petitioner contends and by Exts.P5 and P5(a) a fresh enquiry is going to be conducted against the petitioner on the basis of the same set of facts and a fresh enquiry now ordered is illegal. Petitioner relies on Ext. P7 circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in the matter of disciplinary proceedings and enquiry of employees of cooperative institutions. Based on Ext. P7, it is contended that a second enquiry by the same disciplinary authority is illegal. However, counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that no second enquiry is ordered but an additional enquiry is ordered and that is permissible under law.

(3.) It may be noticed that the allegations against the petitioner is that he committed certain irregularities in the matter of theft of gold ornaments and by his negligence gave opportunity to commit theft of gold ornaments kept under the safe custody of one K. Guruva and that the petitioner violated the rules and regulations relating to grant of gold loans to customers.