9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Dismissal from service, falsification of accounts, misappropriation of bank's money, jurisdiction of Co-operative Arbitration Court, violation of principles of natural justice, reconsideration of matter, retirement from service, pension from Kerala State Co-operative Pension Fund. Dismissal from service: The petitioner, an employee of the 4th respondent Society, was dismissed from service u/s Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules due to allegations of falsification of accounts and misappropriation of bank's money. Despite remitting the entire amount upon detection of irregularities, she was found guilty in an enquiry and dismissed. Various appeals and judgments followed, leading to a reinstatement order by the Registrar, which was later overturned by the Government through Ext.P14 order dated 29.03.2005. The petitioner challenged this order through a Writ Petition, arguing that further action against her was unwarranted since she had already rectified the loss. She also contended that the finding of misappropriation against her was unsustainable in law. Jurisdiction of Co-operative Arbitration Court: The petitioner argued that post-02.01.2003, only the Co-operative Arbitration Court had jurisdiction to handle her case as per Section 70B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. She claimed that the orders of the Joint Registrar and the Government were without jurisdiction and requested the matter to be reconsidered by the Co-operative Arbitration Court. However, the Government and other respondents defended the jurisdiction of the Registrar and the Government, stating that the findings against the petitioner were factual and could not be disturbed by the Court. Violation of principles of natural justice: The petitioner alleged a violation of the principles of natural justice in the proceedings, particularly regarding the submission of an argument note by the bank after the closure of arguments in the appeal. The Government relied on this note, which the petitioner argued was against the principles of natural justice. However, the Court held that the submission of an argument note did not equate to submitting adverse materials and that the petitioner could challenge the arguments raised in the note before the Court. Retirement from service and pension consideration: Considering that the petitioner had already retired from service, the Court directed the 5th respondent to assess whether the punishment imposed on her could be converted into compulsory retirement, enabling her to draw a pension from the Kerala State Co-operative Pension Fund. This direction was given within two months from the date of the Court's judgment. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the Government's order and decisions made in the case. The Court emphasized the importance of jurisdiction, the findings of fact, and the principles of natural justice in the proceedings. It also considered the petitioner's retirement status and directed the assessment of converting the punishment into compulsory retirement for pension benefits.
|
