AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.L. Dattu, C.J.—The third respondent while working as Secretary of the Malampuzha Service Co-operative Bank (first appellant herein) on probation, was suspended on 28.11.1995. On 22.2.1996 a memo of charges was issued to the third respondent and an enquiry officer was appointed. On 21.5.1996, it would appear that the third respondent submitted Ext.P1 resignation letter, during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. The genuineness of the resignation letter is in dispute. The disciplinary proceedings were completed in which the third respondent was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. On 25.5.1996 the Bank passed Resolution No. 2 proposing to dismiss the third respondent from service. On the same day, Resolution No. 4 was passed by the Managing Committee of the Bank accepting Ext.P1 resignation letter submitted by the third respondent.
Resolution No. 2 dated 25.5.1996 was challenged by the third respondent before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (Rules for short) on the ground that he was denied of a right of appeal under Rule 198(4) of the Rules against the order of dismissal, since the dismissal order was issued by the Managing Committee itself, the Managing Committee being the appellate authority also. On 18.6.1997 Ext.P3 order was passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies rescinding Resolution No. 2 dated 25.5.1996. However, liberty was granted to the Managing Committee to proceed against the third respondent after affording him an opportunity to file a statutory appeal. As per Ext.P4 order dated 31.3.1998 the appeal filed by the third respondent under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 was dismissed which was challenged by the third respondent in O.P. No. 11435 of 1999. The said original petition was disposed of by permitting the management to continue the proceedings. In January, 2000 a memo of charges was served on the third respondent. On 14.2.2000 Resolution No. 1 (Ext.P5) was passed by the Sub Committee of the Bank resolving to recommend acceptance of the resignation tendered by the third respondent. Ext.P5 was challenged by the third respondent before the Joint Registrar. Thereafter the Managing Committee passed Resolution No. 7 dated 18.8.2001 upholding the recommendation of the Sub Committee which was also challenged by the third respondent before the Joint Registrar. On 17.9.2001 the Joint Registrar passed Ext.P7 order rescinding Ext.P5 resolution of the Sub Committee and also Resolution No. 7 dated 18.8.2001 of the Managing Committee. The Joint Registrar also directed the Bank to reinstate the third respondent in service with all backwages. Ext.P7 order was challenged by the Bank in appeal before the Government which was disposed of as per Ext.P9 order dated 12.11.2002. Exts.P7 and P9 orders are under challenge in the original petition.
The learned Single Judge by his order dated 10th February, 2004 has rejected the writ petition. That is how the Bank is before us in this writ appeal.
Sri. N. Raghuraj, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Bank would submit that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in exercise of his powers under Rule 176 of the Rules could not have interfered with the resolution passed by Sub Committee of the appellant Bank. In support of that contention the learned Counsel invites our attention to Section 2(e) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rule 176 of the Rules. Section 2(e) of the Act speaks of committee to mean the governing body of a co-operative 3 society by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the society is entrusted.
Rule 176 of the Rules speaks of the power of the Registrar of a Co- operative society. The said rule specifically states that the Registrar can rescind a resolution of any meeting of any society or the committee of any society, if it appears to him that such resolution is ultra vires of the objects of the society, or is against the provisions of the Act, Rules, Bye-laws or of any direction or instructions issued by the Department, or calculated to disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the society or is contrary to the better interest of the society.
A reading of the aforesaid Rule would make it abundantly clear that the Registrar which includes any person on whom all or any of the powers of the Registrar under the Act is conferred, can rescind any resolution of any meeting of any society or the resolution passed by the committee of any society, if it appears to him that the said resolution is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The expression ''committee'' that finds a place in Rule 176 if read along with the meaning of expression ''committee'' u/s 2(e) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, it would only mean the Managing Committee of a society or the governing body of a cooperative society to which the management of the society is entrusted. A sub-committee constituted by the managing committee would not come within the definition of committee. Therefore, the Joint Registrar of the Cooperative Society firstly cannot entertain an application filed questioning the resolution passed by the sub-committee nor can pass any order interfering with the resolution passed by the sub-committee.
In the instant case the Sub Committee has passed a resolution recommending the Bank to accept the letter of resignation sent by the third respondent/Secretary of the Bank. That recommendation is questioned by the petitioner before the Joint Registrar. In our view, in view of the language employed by the Rule making authority in Rule 176 of the Rules, he could not have interfered with the recommendations made by the Sub Committee of the Bank. Therefore, to this extent the order passed by the Joint Registrar in interfering with the recommendations made by the Sub Committee of the Bank requires to be set aside.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would further submit that while exercising the powers under Rule 176 of the Rules, the Joint Registrar can only rescind a resolution passed by the society or a committee of the society, if, in his opinion, the resolution passed by the managing committee of the society is contrary to the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. The dictionary meaning of the word ''rescind'' is to cancel, revoke or set aside the resolution of a society. Apart from this power, there is no other power that is given to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, is the submission of the learned Counsel.
The learned Counsel further submits that having rescinded the resolution, the Joint Registrar had no authority of law or jurisdiction to direct the Bank to reinstate the third respondent in service with all backwages. Sri. Raghuraj, in aid of his submission has relied upon the observation made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of President, Purupariyaram Service Co-op. Society v. Rugmini Amma and Ors. 1996 (1) KLT 100. In the said decision the Division Bench of this Court has observed that the Joint Registrar while exercising his powers under Rule 176 of the Rules can only rescind a resolution passed by the committee of the society and has no power to pass an order for reinstatement of an employee into the service of the society.
Sri. P.N. Mohanan, learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent tried to justify the orders passed by the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. According to him, the Joint Registrar or the Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot be mere spectators when they find that there is some illegality in the action of the management of a co-operative society. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, having rescinded the resolution, the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies is authorised to pass consequential orders. Therefore, according to him, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies was fully justified in directing the appellant Bank to reinstate the third respondent into service with full backwages. In support of that contention the learned Counsel relies upon the observations made by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Aji v. State of Kerala 1995 (1) KLT 363.
In the instant case, while allowing the application filed by the third respondent, the Joint Registrar has passed the following order. The same reads as under:
I rescind the Resolution No. 1 passed by the sub committee dated 14.2.2000 and also Board resolution No. 7 dated 18.6.2001 of the Malampuzha Service Co-operative Bank under Rule 176 of the Rules framed under the Co- operative Societies Act. I also order that Sri. N. Unnikrishnan shall be reinstated as Secretary of the Malampuzha Service Cooperative Society with effect from 28.11.1995 forthwith and he should be paid back wages in accordance with the scale of pay applicable to the classification of the Bank. Since orders have been passed to pay back wages, I am not passing any order for subsistence allowance.
Rule 176 of the Rules reads as under:
Registrar''s power to rescind resolution:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of a registered society, it shall be competent for the Registrar to rescind any resolution of any meeting of any society or the committee of any society, if it appears to him that such resolution is ultra vires of the objects of the society, or is against the provisions of the Act, Rules, Bye-laws or of any direction or instructions issued by the Department, or calculated to disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the society or is contrary to the better interest of the society.
A bare perusal of the said Rule would indicate that the Registrar or the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies is competent to rescind any resolution of any meeting of any society or the committee of any society if it appears to him that such resolution is ultra vires of the objects of the society or is against the provisions of the Act, Rules, Bye-laws or of any direction or instructions issued by the Department, or calculated to disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the society or is contrary to the better interest of the society.
The language employed by the rule making authority is very clear, in the sense there is no ambiguity whatsoever. The power that is entrusted in the Registrar or the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Rule 176 of the Rules is to rescind, if it appears to him that a resolution passed by a society is contrary to either the Act or the Rules or the Bye-laws of the society. After cancelling such a resolution, he cannot pass a consequential order is the submission of Sri. N. Raghuraj, the learned Counsel for the appellants. We need not deliberate on this issue at length firstly in view of the clear language employed by the Rule making authority and secondly in view of the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court following the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Aji v. State of Kerala 1996 (1) KLT 100. In the said judgment, at paragraph 32 the Court has observed:
Yet another contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that under Rule 176 the Joint Registrar has no authority to order reinstatement. A reading of Rule 176 enables the registrar to rescind a resolution and does not authorise the Registrar to issue a direction of reinstatement. That is exclusively the province of the Society governed by its own bye-laws. However, that portion of the order which says that there is violation of the principles of natural justice and the 1st respondent must be reinstated in service is not in accordance with law.
In the instant case, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies has come to the conclusion that Resolution No. 7 passed by the Bank is contrary to the provisions of the bye-laws of the Bank. Having come to that conclusion the Joint Registrar under Rule 176 of the Rules could have cancelled that resolution. Apart from that he could not have issued any further direction to reinstate the third respondent into service and also to pay backwages. In that view of the matter that portion of the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies in issuing a direction to the Bank to reinstate the third respondent into service and to pay him backwages requires to be set aside. Accordingly the following:
ORDER
i) The writ appeal filed by the Bank is allowed.
ii) The orders passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 37665 of 2002 is set aside.
iii) The order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in rescinding Ext.P5 resolution is set aside.
iv) The order passed by the Joint Registrar in directing the appellant Bank to reinstate the third respondent into service and to pay him the backwages is set aside.
v) Liberty is reserved to the third respondent to approach the appropriate authority for redressal of all his grievances, if he so desires.
vi) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Ordered accordingly.