Rule 198 Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules | Managing Committee Not Exclusive Authority To Issue Memo Of Charge: Kerala HC Full Bench

The Kerala High Court last week overruled the decision of the division bench in Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joshy Varghese (2020), which dealt with the interpretation of Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies (KCS) Rules.A Full Bench comprising Justice Alexander Thomas, Justice C Jayachandran and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen thus revised the interpretation of Rule 198 and held that appointing authority is not the sole and exclusive authority for framing and issuing memo of charges to the delinquent employees. “...it is to be held that the view taken by the Division Bench in Kodanchery's case supra [2020 (4) KLT 129], as if the appointing authority (Managing Committee) is the sole and exclusive authority for framing and issuing memo of charges to the delinquent employees, covered by Rule 198 of the KCS Rules, does not reflect the correct legal position.”The key takeaways from the Kondachery (supra) were as follows:1. Only the appointing authority/managing committee has the power to issue chargesheet to employees of cooperative societies. It refers to Rule 198 (2B) of the KCS Rules to state that the disciplinary sub-committee is not empowered to frame memo of charges and that the power to frame memo of charges was exclusively vested with the appointing authority/managing committee of the cooperative society.2. The terms charge and memo of charges/charge sheet have different meanings. In this regard, the division bench held that a charge memo can only be issued by the appointing authority which is the Managing Committee. 3. The disciplinary sub-committee under Rule 198 (2A) and (2B) were not standing committees and can only be constituted on a case-to-case basis to inquire into allegations.The division bench of the High Court was hearing a writ appeal when it referred the above questions of law to the full bench.Rule 198 (Before Amendment)Rule 198 deals with disciplinary action against the employees of cooperative societies. Rule 198 (3) gives powers to certain authorities to issue penalties and Rule 198(4) gives powers to certain authorities to consider appeals against the imposition of penalties. The Managing Committee has the power to issue certain major penalties under Rule 198(3). Going by Rule 198(4), the Managing Committee happens to be the appellate authority as well. Thus, the problem was that if the Managing Committee itself was issuing penalties under Rule 198(3), then the employees cannot prefer an appeal under Rule 198(4) to the same Managing Committee. The afore-mentioned confusion was cleared by the Court in President, Pudupariyaram Service Co-operative Society v. Rukmini Amma & Ors. (1996). The Court held that as per Rule 198(3) penalties should be imposed by the subcommittee. This decision of the sub-committee could be challenged by filing an appeal under Rule 198(4) before the managing committee. The court also held that failure to constitute a sub-committee as the disciplinary authority to issue penalties was against the KCS Rules. Rule 198 (After Amendment) Rule 198 was amended and sub-rules (2A) and (2B) were inserted after the amendment was made effective from November 02, 2010. Rule 198 (2A) provides for the creation of a disciplinary sub-committee. Rule 198 (2B) provides that the disciplinary sub-committee shall inquire into the charges against the employees either by themselves or by engaging an external agency. Findings of the CourtThe full bench found that the clarification brought in by the Pudupariyaram case (supra) was to ensure that employees were not denied the opportunity to prefer an appeal before the Managing Committee under Rule 198(4). If the authority imposing the penalty was the same as that of the appellate authority, then that would render the appeal provision useless. The Court held thus:“It is in this context that the Division Bench of this Court in Pudupariyaram's case supra [1996 (1) KLT 100 (DB)], has held, inter alia, in paras 9 & 10 thereof, that the said practice is illegal and ultra vires, inasmuch as a statutorily vested and accrued right of appeal will be obliterated and nullified, inasmuch as the appeal will have to be dealt with by the same authority (Managing Committee), which has imposed the penalty. Hence, the Division Bench ordered that, failure to constitute a sub-committee, as envisaged in Rule 198(3), to take the decision regarding penalties, is contrary to the provisions of the Rules, etc.”The full bench stated that a comparative reading of Rule 198 before and amendment would show that sub-rules (2A) and (2B) have been inserted only for clarity and focus. It was to ensure that penalties were imposed by designated authority only to ensure that the right to appeal under Rule 198 (4) was made meaningful. Agreeing with the Pudupariyaram case (supra) and legislative amendments, the full bench held that the disciplinary sub-committee under Rule 198 (2A) and (2B) is the same as the sub-committee under Rule 198 (3). The Court held ...

Rule 198 Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules | Managing Committee Not Exclusive Authority To Issue Memo Of Charge: Kerala HC Full Bench

Tellmy Jolly

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rule 198 Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules | Managing Committee Not Exclusive Authority To Issue Memo Of Charge: Kerala HC Full Bench

Tellmy Jolly

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers