The Managing Director,Regional Oilseeds Growers Co-operative Societies Union Limited vs The Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (C and M)

B.S. Patil, J.—In these writ petitions, the petitioner-Union is challenging the order dated 2-9-2010 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 913 of 2004 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bellary-respondent 2 herein. The facts, in brief are that the petitioner is a Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, ''the Act''). Respondent 3 was working as Office Assistant under the petitioner. On allegations of misconduct, a Disciplinary Enquiry was ordered against respondent 3 along with certain other employees. The charges levelled against respondent 3 and other employees were as under:

(i) leaving the place of work without any intimation;

(ii) abusing and threatening the employees of the Union;

(iii) gheraoing;

(iv) acting against the interest of the Union with oblique intension;

(v) acts subversive of discipline.

Petitioner-Union did not lead any evidence during the course of enquiry. Respondent 3 and certain others who were charged with the allegations of misconduct admitted their guilt. Based on the evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report stating that the charges were proved. He further opined that the charges were simple in nature. The Managing Director of the petitioner-Union issued a show-cause notice. He accepted the charges and imposed major penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 14-7-2000.

Aggrieved by the same, a dispute was raised by respondent 3 along with other employees before the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The dispute was later on transferred to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Evidence was recorded before the Deputy Registrar. The 3rd respondent in his sworn statement contended that he was assured by the petitioner-Union that he would be reinstated, if he admitted his guilt. Thus, he was persuaded to admit the guilt although he had not committed any such misconduct alleged against him. Petitioner-Union, neither led any evidence, nor cross-examined the 3rd respondent before the Deputy Registrar.

Based on the evidence on record, the Deputy Registrar found that order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was erroneous and was liable to be set aside. He also recorded a finding that the charges were simple in nature and major penalty of dismissal was wholly unwarranted. Hence, while setting aside the order of dismissal, a direction was issued to the petitioner-Union for reinstatement of the 3rd respondent without back wages. This order was passed on 18-6-2004. It is also seen that respondent 3 has been denied back wages for the entire period during which he was out of service.

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner-Union preferred an appeal in Appeal No. 913 of 2004 before the Tribunal.

It was contended before the Tribunal by the petitioner-Union that no opportunity to cross-examine the 3rd respondent was afforded by the Deputy Registrar and therefore, there was denial of fair hearing. It was also contended that as the petitioner-Union had closed down its establishment they were not in a position to reinstate respondent 3. Several other contentions were also urged on merits.

The Tribunal has considered the contentions urged by the petitioner-Union and has dismissed the appeal holding that despite sufficient opportunity provided before the Deputy Registrar, the petitioner-Union did not avail the opportunity to lead evidence or cross-examine respondent 3. It is further found that a memo was filed on 7-5-2004 before the Deputy Registrar by the petitioner-Union which, in effect, disclosed that they did not want to cross-examine respondent 3, as they had already filed written arguments and that after consulting their Advocate they were filing the said memo. The Tribunal has further found that petitioner has not produced any material to show that they had closed down the establishment and there was any difficulty for reinstatement of respondent 3. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar as affirmed by the Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Union contends that findings recorded by the Tribunal are erroneous. ''Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent 3 supports the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire materials on record. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the orders under challenge suffer from any illegality warranting interference in the writ jurisdiction. Materials on record, as analysed and dealt with by both the authorities, particularly the Tribunal disclose that 3rd respondent was proceeded against by holding a Disciplinary Enquiry. Charges levelled were simple in nature. The stand of the 3rd respondent before the Deputy Registrar was that he did not voluntarily admit the guilt, but was made to give such a statement before the Enquiry Officer by holding out an assurance by the petitioner-Union that he would be taken back to service by dropping the enquiry. This version of respondent 3 has remained unchallenged. The Deputy Registrar has provided a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence and also to cross-examine the 3rd respondent. Petitioner has not availed the opportunity. No other witness is examined in support of the case of the petitioner either before the Enquiry Officer or before the Deputy Registrar. In such circumstances, the Deputy Registrar has rightly come to the conclusion that order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the 3rd respondent was illegal. He has also taken note of the fact that charges were simple in nature and such an extreme step of dismissal was totally unwarranted. These findings are affirmed by the Tribunal by holding that despite opportunity provided before the Deputy Registrar, petitioner-Society has not availed the same. A perusal of the records and the findings disclose that petitioner-Union was indeed provided a fair and reasonable opportunity before the Deputy Registrar, but has failed to avail the same. The charges framed also reveal that they were simple in nature. The fact that petitioner failed to cross-examine the 3rd respondent before the Deputy Registrar and failed to lead any evidence to substantiate its stand also makes it clear that there was absolutely no evidence except the statement of the 3rd respondent who allegedly admitted his guilt. He has stated before the Deputy Registrar that he did not voluntarily make such a statement. His evidence has gone unquestioned. Effect of the same has been appreciated by both the authorities to come to a conclusion that order of dismissal based on such material was unsustainable. In exercise of the writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion. The approach adopted by the authorities and the impugned orders passed cannot be termed as one suffering from error of jurisdiction. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that petitioner-Union has failed to establish that the Union was closed and that they were not in a position to reinstate respondent 3. In such circumstances, contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-Union cannot be accepted. As I do not find any merit in these writ petitions, the same are dismissed.