KUNHAMMAD Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the President and the Secretary of the Cooperative Society. The second respondent was the Branch Manager of the Cooperative Bank. A punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the second respondent by the Sub Committee constituted to take disciplinary action. This was by Ext. P - 1. The second respondent filed an appeal before the Director Board of the Society. By Ext. P - 2 the appeal was dismissed. Against Exts. P - 1 and P - 2 the second respondent filed Ext. P - 3 petition before the first respondent under R.176 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). In Ext. P - 3, apart from disputing the correctness of the factual findings of the disciplinary authority, the following contention has been taken:

(2.) Shri K. Ramakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction in exercising the power conferred on him under R.176 of the Rules in rescinding the two resolutions passed by the Sub-Committee of the Society and the Board of Directors of the Society. The learned counsel cited a Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in Pudupariyaram Service Cooperative Society v. Rugmini Amma ( 1996 (1) KLT 100 ). In the above case two questions arose. The first question was whether the failure to constitute a sub committee to take the decision in a disciplinary matter is contrary to the provisions of the Rules and therefore, whether the Registrar was justified in interfering with the resolution of the Society. The second question was whether a second opportunity of being heard must be afforded to the delinquent employee of the Cooperative Society after receipt of the enquiry report. On the first question the Judges were unanimous in holding that the failure to constitute a sub committee is an infraction of the rules. On the second question, one learned Judge constituting the Division Bench differed and held that there need not be any second opportunity to be extended for a delinquent employee after receipt of the enquiry report. The learned counsel relied on Para.16 of the judgment which is as follows:

(3.) There is a passage of the Full Bench of this Court in the ruling reported in Aji v. State of Kerala ( 1995 (1) KLT 363 (FB)) with regard to the power of the Registrar under R.176 of the Rules which reads as follows: