AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Hon''ble Mr. Justice A.N. Venugopala Gowda
The petitioner having joined service of the P.C.A. & R.D. Bank Limited, made a request for transfer, which having been considered, an order of transfer dated 19.06.2003 was passed by the 2nd respondent. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was relieved on 23.08.2003, to report at the P.C.A. & R.D. Bank Limited, Bhatkal. The petitioner having not reported to duty and having failed to submit the joining report till 14.09.2007, a charge sheet-cum-show cause notice was issued by the 2nd respondent. Noticing that cause has not been shown and a reply has not been submitted by the petitioner, to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the two charges contained in the show cause notice-cum-charge sheet dated 14.09.2007, an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on 26.09.2007. The Enquiry Officer having submitted report dated 21.12.2007 holding the petitioner guilty of both the charges levelled against him, taking note of a reply dated 23.05.2008 submitted by the petitioner, second show cause notice dated 30.05.2008 was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted reply dated 31.05.2008, wherein, he admitted the non-submission of the joining report and the absence from duty without sanction of leave w.e.f. 01.09.2003. He requested to treat the period as leave without allowance and permit him to continue in service.
The 2nd respondent having considered the record of disciplinary proceedings, finding the charges levelled against the petitioner as having been proved and there being misconduct of remaining unauthorized absent w.e.f. 01.09.2003, by an order dated 31.05.2008, the period between 01.09.2003 to 31.01.2008 was treated as leave without allowances and the petitioner was reduced from the post of Junior Field Officer with pay scale of Rs. 3,850 - 7,050/- to the post of Junior Field Officer with pay-scale of Rs. 3,000 - 5,450/- and the petitioners pay was fixed at the minimum of the said pay scale.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Regulation 61(i) of Regulations regarding Appointment - Transfer - Disciplinary action and Other service conditions for the employees of PCA & RD Banks in Karnataka, before the Common Cadre Committee. The Committee having examined the subject, held that, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is appropriate and the appeal being liable to be rejected. An endorsement to the said effect was issued on 03.01.2009. Questioning the said two orders, this writ petition has been filed.
Sri. N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that:
The Disciplinary Authority having treated the period of absence from duty w.e.f 01.09.2003 to 31.01.2008 as leave without allowance has erred in reducing the petitioner, both in rank and pay.
The explanation offered for absence for the period between 01.09.2003 to 22.01.2008 being for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, there is no justification for imposing the punishment of reducing the petitioner in rank and fixing his pay at the minimum of the pay scale of Rs. 3,000 - 5,450/-.
The appeal preferred under Regulation 61(i) has not been, considered by the Committee in accordance with law and the endorsement issued on 03.01.2009 is totally bald and is unsustainable.
Sri. J.G. Chandra Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, by inviting the attention of the Court to the statement of objections filed to the writ petition, contended that, the petitioner has indisputedly remained absent from duty for the period from 01.09.2003 to 31.01.2008 and there being no justification for the long unauthorized absence and in view of the findings recorded against the petitioner in the disciplinary enquiry, the order dated 31.05.2008 passed by the Disciplinary Authority/ Secretary of the Common Cadre Committee is justified. Learned counsel by inviting the attention of the Court to the reply dated 31.05.2008 of the petitioner, pointed out that, there is admission of unauthorized absence and there being only a prayer to treat the period of absence as leave without allowances, the petitioner cannot contend that the punishment imposed is illegal. He submitted that, the unauthorized absence being not in dispute, the period of absence being long, the petitioner cannot contend that no punishment should have been imposed on him and the period should have been only treated as leave without allowance. Learned counsel further submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2nd respondent is justified in passing the order dated 31.05.2008, as at Annexure-J. Learned counsel contended that, the appeal submitted to the Committee being devoid of merit and the order passed by the Committee being one of affirmance of the order against which the appeal was preferred, the Appellate Authority is not required to pass a reasoned order since the order impugned was before the Committee and the Committee having considered the record, endorsed the action taken by the Disciplinary Authority/Secretary of the Common Cadre Committee. Learned counsel submitted that, in the circumstances of the case, the endorsement as at Annexure-M, does not suffer from any infirmity. Alternatively, learned counsel submitted that, Regulation 71 provides for an appeal to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, which being an efficacious remedy, has not been exhausted and hence the writ petition in the face of availability of statutory remedy is not maintainable.
Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also having regard to the record of the case, there being no denial of fact that the petitioner did not work for the period 01.09.2003 to 31.01.2008 and he had no leave at his credit and had requested to treat the said period as leave without allowance, whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner of reducing him in rank and fixing his pay in the minimum of the pay scale of Rs. 3,000 - 5,450/- is justified or not, is a matter which ought to have been considered by the Committee, while taking decision on the appeal.
The endorsement-dated 03.01.2009 as at Annexure-M merely says that, having considered the matter, the punishment imposed as appropriate and the appeal was rejected. The endorsement as at Annexure-M, impugned in this writ petition, does not even make any reference to the record of the case. Rom the said endorsement it is evident that, the Committee has not considered the case put forth in the appeal memo. Certainly, the endorsement as at Annexure-M is bald and laconic. The Authority acting in a quasi-judicial character-should indicate some reasons as to why it accepted the findings of lower forum, which is absent in the impugned endorsement as at Annexure-M. However, it is unnecessary to quash the said endorsement and remit the matter to the Committee for re-consideration of the appeal, since the petitioner can seek redressal of his grievance by filing an appeal under Regulation 71 before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
Having regard to the above, the writ petition stands disposed off, permitting the petitioner to question the impugned orders by filing an appeal under Regulation 71, before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, on or before 05.11.2011.
If an appeal is preferred by the petitioner within the said date, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka is directed to consider the appeal and decide the same on its merit, without raising the question of delay.
The Registrar is directed to decide the appeal, if preferred, as expeditiously as practicable and at any event, within a period of four months from the date of its filing.
Contentions of both parties are kept open for consideration, by making it clear that, it is for the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka, to decide the matter in accordance with law, keeping in view the rival contentions of the parties.
No costs.