BANGALORE GRAPE GROWERS MARKETING AND PROCESSING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LALBAGH BANGALORE Vs. K M MUNIVENKATAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the Bangalore Grape Growers Marketing and Processing Co-operative Society (here in after referred to as the 'Society') and it is directed against an order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore dated 18-7-1986. I shall very briefly recount the salient features of the controversy which have culminated in this proceeding. The petitioners are a Society dealing essentially at that time with agriculturists and agricultural produce. The respondent in the year 1981 was working as the Accountant-cum-Loan Recovery Officer at Bangalore. It is alleged that one B.C. Ramegowda had sent a demand draft for Rs. 9,000/- towards certain outstandings of his and that out of the amount tendered by him, the respondent adjusted an amount of Rs. 745.60 ps. which was the outstanding amount against the name of his brother K.M. Venkatappa, It is the case of the Society that the respondent has misconducted himself by adjusting this amount of Rs. 745.60 ps. out of the amount tendered by Ramegowda to clear off the outstandings of his brother Venkatappa. Accordingly a charge-sheet dated 5-10-1981 was issued to him asking him to show-cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken and the essence of the charge-sheet was that he had mis-utilised Rs. 745.60 ps. out of the amount tendered by the member Ramegowda to wipe off the arrears standing against the respondent's brother's account and he has therefore not only acted irregularly and improperly but that it also constituted falsification of accounts insofar as the outstandings against his brother's accounts were wiped out. The Society contends that in the enquiry that followed, that the respondent did not effectively dispute the facts and that the Enquiry Committee submitted a report to the Managing Committee of the Society that the misconduct was established. After following the due process, a punishment was imposed on the respondent whereby he was demoted and effectively, his salary was reduced from the scale that he was at that time drawing of Rs. 1,060/- to the lowest in scale 5 namely of Rs. 400/- per month. The respondent challenged this decision before the Co-operative Court and both the parties led evidence before that forum. The Co-operative Court in the first instance, dismissed the respondent's dispute after which the matter went in appeal to the Tribunal. The Society contends that the grounds on which the Tribunal has interfered with the decision are unsustainable insofar as the Tribunal has upheld the charge that there was heavy bias against the respondent and further more, the Tribunal has set aside the final order passed by the Managing Committee and held that it was open to the Society to hold a de novo enquiry. The Society also contends that apart from the aspect of bias that the Tribunal has also proceeded on the footing that the office-bearers of the Society have acted both as a Prosecutor and Judge in the same cause and that consequently there was an infringement of procedure. It is essentially on these grounds that the order of the Tribunal has been challenged. I need to add here that subsequently there were certain other developments and there is some other litigation because the petitioner came to be charge-sheeted on certain other facts which ended in an order of dismissal which is also challenged by him. That writ petition was subsequently filed and since this petition was already pending, the two matters were directed to be heard together. The facts, the law etc, in relation to the other writ petition which is connected with a third petition will be dealt with by me separately because that proceeding has nothing to do with the present one.

(2.) Appearing in support of the petitioner-Society, Mr. Rao has submitted that this is a case in which no interference was warranted. He contends that the facts are effectively admitted and that even the aspect of so called bias etc. that the Tribunal has upheld are purely and completely academic for the simple reason that once the matter went to the Co-operative Court, the parties have led fresh evidence before that Court and he submits that the Co-operative Court has decided the matter on merits which seems to have been completely overlooked by the Tribunal and therefore since the proceeding before the Co-operative Court virtually superseded whatever might have happened before the Society; that there is a gross error on the part of the Tribunal in setting aside the enquiry on the ground of bias etc. without considering what specifically transpired. He has also submitted that there was no allegation of bias at any earlier stage of the proceeding and that it is very clear that this was an afterthought. He submits that no material has been adduced to dispute the allegations in the charge-sheet and as regards the procedure adopted it is his contention that in a given instance it is permissible for a Disciplinary Authority to conduct an enquiry by itself without delegating the powers to anyone else and that therefore there is no infringement of the well-settled procedure.

(3.) The respondent's learned Advocate has vehementlysubmitted that this is a case in which the decision was motivated and that it was malicious. He submitted that the respondent had fallen foul of some of the officials of the Society and that they were virtually after his blood; that they have concocted the evidence and that even as far as the punishment was concerned, that they have awarded the harshest possible punishment to the respondent and that under these circumstances the entire procedure is vitiated by mala fides. One of the submissions canvassed was that a particular official of the Society was virtually insisting on dominating the other officials and that it was at his instance that the charge-sheet was issued which ultimately culminated in the punishment. I shall dispose of this head straightaway because I am inclined after hearing both the learned Advocates and perusing the material before me to accept the position that no case of bias has been made out. The merits of the matter will be dealt with by me separately but to my mind, it is well-settled law that in cases where bias is alleged, that it is necessary to establish it at least to a reasonable extent through material from which a Court can come to the conclusion that the allegation was well founded. It may be true as appears to me from the records of this case that there were some personal animosity between the respondent and other persons but beyond this I am not prepared to hold that the enquiry was vitiated by bias. Even as far as the procedure is concerned, I do not find anything wrong with the manner in which the enquiry was conducted and therefore both the grounds on which the Tribunal was inclined to interfere with the decision in this enquiry are wholly incorrect and will have to be set aside.