V.G. KANNAN, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PATHEZHIKKADU, KOTHAPARAMBU (VIA), THRISSUR Vs. POOVATHUMKADAVU FARMERS CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P7 judgment of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal in A.P.No.24/2009 dated 21.3.2011, whereby the Tribunal interfered with the order passed by the Arbitration Court in ARC No.5/2008 and upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority dismissing the petitioner from the services of the 1st respondent bank. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows;

(2.) Petitioner was an employee of the 1st respondent Co-operative Bank. While working as Senior Clerk, he was sent on deputation as Manager Credit Banking, Co-operation and Management Information System in the Integrated Co-operative Development Project. Though the deputation was initially for one year, it was extended from time to time till 31.12.2005, on which date petitioner resigned from the aforesaid project. Petitioner was to have rejoined the 1st respondent bank on 16.1.2006 but since he was unwell, applied for six months medical leave. It is alleged that, petitioner reported for joining duty upon expiry of the leave period. But the 1st respondent did not allow the petitioner to resume duty. Thereafter, petitioner was served with a charge memo alleging that, he has unauthorizedly absented from 16.1.2006 and initiated a domestic enquiry into the charges alleged viz., dereliction of duty, unauthorized absence and insubordination, evident from Ext.P1 memo of charge.

(3.) Petitioner submitted a reply to Ext.P1. But thereafter, he was issued with an additional charge memo alleging that, he had gone abroad during the period of unauthorized absence, evident from Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, petitioner had gone abroad not in search of any job as alleged in Ext.P2, but in aid of his ailing brother-in-law and was abroad only for a short period. Petitioner had explained the said facts in letter dated 11.12.2006. However, first respondent ordered domestic enquiry into the charges alleged as per Exts.P1 and P2. Enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty of all charges except charge No.3. According to the petitioner, the enquiry was conducted in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer even went to the extent of recommending action under rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. Enquiry report is produced as Ext.P3.