Muthuvana Haridasan vs Secretary Perumanna Service Co Operative Bank Ltd,Perumanna,Kozhikode District

Mohammed Nias C.P.J.

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1, an order passed in appeal by the appellate authority under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act and Rules. The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.2.1987 issued against him by the first respondent Bank terminating his service with effect from 13.2.1987 on the allegations of misappropriation of funds in which he was accused in connection with a shortage of articles worth Rs.25,287.33/-, which was detected during the annual stock verification of the store by a team of two directors and Unit Co-operative Inspector on 30.6.1986. There was a further charge of the manipulation of documents.

A domestic enquiry was conducted, and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him that led to the termination of his services. The petitioner had challenged the punishment in SA 32 of 1987, which was dismissed by the appellate authority, which was challenged before this Court wherein by judgment dated 19.2.1997, this court quashed the order passed by the appellate authority, and the petitioner was given an opportunity to lead defence evidence, and for that purpose, a fresh enquiry committee was directed to be appointed, and after taking the defence evidence, the committee was directed to draw a report based on the total evidence available including those tendered before the former enquiry committee. The appellant was found guilty of the charges for the second time after the above exercise, and the termination was upheld. Challenging the same, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority contending that non-examination of the Unit Inspectors who verified the stock was fatal and that the articles were given on a credit basis. as per the directions given by the then President of the bank one P. Moideen and that the photostat copies of the slips/notes written by the President were also not considered by the enquiry committee. After considering the petitioner's argument, the appellate authority rejected the appeal. However, the appellate authority ordered payment of Rs.35000/- to the petitioner being the compensation under Section 18(3) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1960.

It is the said order that is challenged in the writ petition primarily on the ground that the non-examination of the Unit Co-operative Inspector by the Bank is fatal and that an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against them for non-examination. It is also the argument of Sri.V.T.Madhavanunni, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that stock verification was a crucial aspect that required strict proof for finding the petitioner guilty. In short, it is his argument that in the absence of proof, shortage of articles on the annual verification by examining the Unit Co-operative Inspectors who conducted the annual stock verification was not proved and the finding of guilt cannot be sustained.

The learned counsel for the first respondent Bank Sri. K.M. Firoz, reiterated the contentions of the bank and tried to justify Ext.P1 order.

Having heard the learned counsel on either side and perusing the records, I find it difficult to accept the contentions on behalf of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner essentially was that the shortage in the stock was due to the customers' free supply as per the President's directions and due to differences in weight. This contention of the petitioners virtually amounts to an admission in difference/shortage in the stock, and therefore, the examination of the Unit Co-operative Inspector, as contended by the petitioner, could not have made any difference in the enquiry proceedings. That apart, the Unit Co-operative Inspector was shown as a defence witness after the remit by this Court on the earlier occasion. Petitioner had examined all the witnesses on the management side except the Unit Co-operative Inspector, whose name was actually placed in the list of management witnesses as per the request of the petitioner. The registered letter addressed to the inspector was returned, stating that the addressee was transferred. An opportunity was given to the petitioner to furnish his new address, which the petitioner did not avail, and as such, the argument of the petitioner that no opportunity was provided for examining the Co-operative Inspector cannot be accepted. Going by the principles of law on the scope of interference in disciplinary matters and in the matter of awarding of punishment, I do not think that Ext.P1 order calls for any interference. I also find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank that the enquiry report and the original order of punishment have not been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. For these reasons, the writ petition fails, and accordingly, the same is dismissed.