B DEENADAYALAN Vs. MANAGEMENT KANCHEEPURAM KAMAKSHIAMMAN SILK HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO OPERATIVE PRODUCTION 8 SALES SOCIETY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent in W.P.No.5583 of 1999, aggrieved against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in allowing the writ petition filed by the Management, a Co-operative Society thereby quashing the proceedings of the second respondent herein, has preferred this writ appeal praying to set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.5583 of 1999.

(2.) TRACING the history of the case, we are able to find that two charges have been framed against the appellant/workman by the Management, first respondent Co-operative Society as per the charge memo dated 7.6.1996 relating to misappropriation of substantial volume of stock and cash proceeds thereby causing a loss to the management to the tune of Rs.6,98,935. The Management seeking explanation of the appellant on the charges framed and having not been satisfied with the explanations offered by the appellant/delinquent, had ordered the domestic enquiry appointing the Enquiry Officer for that purpose, in which two witnesses have been examined on the part of the Management besides marking 14 documents as Exs.M-1 to M-14. On the part of the appellant/ workman he would not examine any witness nor even would he examine himself as a defence witness, but would file 11 documents along with the Final Report, which would be marked as Exs.D-1 to D-11.

(3.) TO the above charge memo. issued, the appellant/delinquent had submitted his explanation dated 15.6.1996 and as already mentioned, the Management, not being satisfied with the explanation offered on the part of the appellant, ordered the enquiry to be held based on the charge memo appointing the Enquiry Officer, who, having recorded the evidence and appreciating the same, has arrived at his finding ultimately, holding the delinquent guilty of the delinquencies brought under both the charges as per his report dated 30.9.1996 leading to the punishment of dismissal to be inflicted by the disciplinary authority on the appellant with further opportunity as per the dismissal order dated 7.12.1996. Aggrieved, the delinquent has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the second respondent herein, under Sec.41(2) of the Act when the Management has raised the legal question that the provisions of the Act have no application to the Co-operative Societies and therefore the appeal is not maintainable. The Management also raised another legal question that the exercise of power by the Appellate Authority under Sec.41(2) of the Act and the manner in which it had allowed parties freely to record oral and documentary evidence, itself acting as the Enquiry Officer, without caring to decide the appeal based on the evidence already recorded by the Enquiry Officer, thus conducting a de novo enquiry, is impermissible in law.