Kochurani Jose v. Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies (General)
2020-12-18
C.T RAVIKUMAR, M.R ANITHA
body2020
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : Ravikumar, J. The appellant who is the unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. (C) No.13381 of 2020 calls in question the judgment passed thereon. The writ petition was filed seeking the following prayers:- “i. Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition or such other order or direction interdicting the 3rd respondent administrative committee from proceeding with the enquiry proceedings initiated under Exhibit P6 charge memo. (ii). Declare that Rule 198 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 as amended by SRO No: 829/10 with effect from 18/08/2010 does not empower the administrator/ administrative committee appointed under Section 32/33 of the Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969 to enquire into by themselves or engage the services of an external agency to enquire into the charges against an employee of the cooperative society. (iii). Issue a writ declaring that the Administrator or the Administrative Committee has no power to conduct the enquiry without following the statutory mandate under Rule 198(2A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and actions taken otherwise are illegal and without authority.” 2. We ween that a succinct narration of facts is inevitable for the disposal of the appeal. The appellant is the Secretary of Thumboor Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.359, the 2nd respondent which is a primary co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for brevity 'the KCS Act'). Earlier, the Managing Committee of the Bank was superseded as per order of the first respondent issued in invocation of the power under Section 32 of the KCS Act. Initially, the order of supersession was stayed as per Ext.P2 order dated 14.6.2019 in W.A.No.1434/2019. But then, on expiry of the term of the committee on 21.7.2019 the administration of the Bank was entrusted with the third respondent Administrative Committee. The appellant was placed under suspension by the said committee as per Ext.P3 dated 27.8.2019 pending enquiry. Immediately thereafter, the appellant challenged the order of suspension by filing W.P.(C)No.23900 of 2019. As per Ext.P4 judgment the said writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the appellant to invoke the alternative remedy available under the KCS Act. Thereafter, the initial period of suspension for six months was extended by the 3rd respondent Committee for a further period of six months as per Ext.P5 order dated 22.2.2020. Still later, Ext.P6 charge memo dated 2.3.2020 and statement of allegations were served on the appellant.
Thereafter, the initial period of suspension for six months was extended by the 3rd respondent Committee for a further period of six months as per Ext.P5 order dated 22.2.2020. Still later, Ext.P6 charge memo dated 2.3.2020 and statement of allegations were served on the appellant. On receipt of Ext.P6 the appellant submitted Ext.P7 reply. Obviously, finding it as unsatisfactory the 4th respondent was appointed as enquiry officer to inquire into the charges levelled against the appellant. It is assailing the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and its continuance, by raising various grounds, that the above mentioned writ petition viz., W.P. (C)No.13381 of 2020 was filed. 3. In the writ petition, the appellant/the petitioner assailed the authority of the 3rd respondent Administrative Committee to initiate and continue with the enquiry proceedings, contending that the Administrative Committee appointed under Section 32/33 of the KCS Act lacks authority to enquire into, by themselves or by engaging the service of an external agency, the charges levelled against an employee of the society in terms of the provisions under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (for short 'KCS Rules') without following the statutory mandate under Rule 198(2A) of KCS Rules. In short, referring to sub-rules (2A) and (2B) of Rule 198 the appellant/the petitioner contended that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings is ab initio void and hence the disciplinary proceedings could not be permitted to be continued. The appellant/the petitioner contended further that after the insertion of sub-rules (2A) and (2B) to Rule 198, with effect from 18.8.2010 it is mandatory for the committee of a society to constitute a disciplinary sub-committee with not more than three of its members and such a duly constituted committee alone would be competent to enquire into the charges issued against an employee, either by themselves or by engaging an external agency. If the essence of the contentions raised before us are put in a nut shell the contention of the appellant is that beyond placing an erring employee under suspension an Administrator or Administrative Committee appointed in place of a Managing Committee in a Cooperative society registered under the provisions of the KCS Act, could not initiate or proceed with the disciplinary proceedings. Evidently, the respondents stoutly opposed the claims and contentions of the appellant. On behalf of respondents 2 to 4 a counter affidavit was also filed in that regard.
Evidently, the respondents stoutly opposed the claims and contentions of the appellant. On behalf of respondents 2 to 4 a counter affidavit was also filed in that regard. The learned Single Judge considered the rival contentions and ultimately dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 as also the learned Government Pleader. 5. As noticed hereinbefore, earlier, assailing the order of suspension, the appellant had approached this Court by filing W.P. (C)No.23900/2019. On the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under the KCS Act, it was dismissed with liberty to invoke the same. The subsequent developments in the matter that made the appellant to come up again by filing W.P.(C)No.13381 of 2020 are the issuance of Ext.P6 memo of charges along with statement of allegations and the appointment of an enquiry officer to inquire into the charges. In short, it is the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings under Ext.P6 and its continuation that made her to file the writ petition, raising the grounds referred hereinbefore. 6. Before us, the appellant has contended that in the light of specific provisions under sub-rules (2A) and (2B) of Rule 198 of the KCS Rules, which came into effect from 18.8.2010, the third respondent Administrative Committee got no power to initiate disciplinary proceedings or continue with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her. Further, it is contended that as per the amendment brought into Rule 198 of the KCS Rules an enquiry into the charges against an employee could only be initiated at the instance of a 'disciplinary subcommittee' constituted by the 'committee of the society' and enquiry could be conducted either by the disciplinary sub-committee themselves or by engaging an external agency. It is also contended that an Administrator or Administrative Committee could only impose a penalty on the basis of the findings in an enquiry conducted by a disciplinary sub-committee or by an external agency engaged for that purpose by the disciplinary sub-committee, obviously before the appointment of the Administrator/Administrative Committee under Section 32/33 of the KCS Act. 7.
It is also contended that an Administrator or Administrative Committee could only impose a penalty on the basis of the findings in an enquiry conducted by a disciplinary sub-committee or by an external agency engaged for that purpose by the disciplinary sub-committee, obviously before the appointment of the Administrator/Administrative Committee under Section 32/33 of the KCS Act. 7. It is to be noted that even while raising contentions based on sub-rules (2A) and (2B) of Rule 198 of the KCS Rules, the appellant is fully aware of the impossibility to comply with the provisions thereunder by appointing three members of the Managing Committee on account of the non-existence of a democratically elected Managing Committee in the Bank. Admittedly, the Bank is being administered by an Administrative Committee. Certainly, that cannot be a reason to repel such contentions if there is a specific mandate under the KCS Act or KCS Rules to the effect that an Administrator/Administrative Committee shall not initiate and/or continue disciplinary proceedings against an erring employee of a Cooperative Society under any circumstances. Indisputably, constitution of a disciplinary sub-committee in terms of sub-rule (2A), would arise only if a democratically elected Managing Committee is in office in a society. In this context, it is relevant to refer to sub-rules (2A) and (2B) of Rule 198 of the KCS Rules and they read thus:- “198.Disctiplinary Action:-..................... (2A) The committee of a society shall constitute a disciplinary sub-committee consisting of not more than three of its members, of whom one shall be designated as Chairman, but the President of the committee of the society shall not be a member in the disciplinary sub-committee. (2B) The disciplinary sub-committee so constituted shall inquire into the charges against the employee either by themselves or by engaging an external agency.” 8. The rider under Rule 198(2A) is that the President of the committee shall not be a member of the disciplinary sub-committee. True that in view of the decisions in Kunhammed v. Joint Registrar ( 1998 (1) KLT 60 ) as also in President, Puduperiyaram Co-op. Society v. Rugmini Amma ( 1996 (1) KLT 100 ) a Managing Committee in office cannot refrain from constituting a disciplinary subcommittee and impose punishment by itself since such an action would amount to negation of appeal provided under Rule 198(4) of the KCS Rules.
Society v. Rugmini Amma ( 1996 (1) KLT 100 ) a Managing Committee in office cannot refrain from constituting a disciplinary subcommittee and impose punishment by itself since such an action would amount to negation of appeal provided under Rule 198(4) of the KCS Rules. But, in the case on hand, the indisputable fact is that in the Cooperative Bank in question an elected Managing Committee is not in office and it is under the management of an Administrative Committee. When that be so, in the absence of an elected Managing Committee in power there can be no question of strict compliance with sub-rules (2A) and (2B) of Rule 198 of KCS Rules for the time being. It is also relevant to note that when once a committee of a society is superseded, for any of the recognized reasons, under Section 32 of the KCS Act or when the term of a committee has expired and a new committee has not been constituted or in the eventuality of such other reasons under Section 33 of the KCS Act, in its place an Administrator or an Administrative Committee consisting of not more than three individuals would be appointed to manage the affairs of the society. 9. When a Co-operative Society registered under the KCS Act is put under the management of an Administrator or Administrative Committee to manage the affairs of the society the first question is whether for the reason that such appointment is only to manage the affairs of the society till a newly elected committee assumes power, the Administrator or the Administrative Committee so appointed should or could remain inertia in regard to the control and discipline of the staff of a Co-operative Bank ? An answer in the affirmative would be annihilative to the very interests of the Bank concerned. The reasons to be stated infra as also the various provisions under the KCS Act and the Rules would reveal the raison d'etre for the aforesaid view. The scheme of the KCS Act and the Rules would reveal that in the absence of an elected Managing Committee, the Administrator/Administrative Committee is to discharge the onerous duty of maintenance of control and discipline of the employees of the Bank. In that regard, the following sub-sections of Sections 32 and 33 of the KCS Act assume relevance.
The scheme of the KCS Act and the Rules would reveal that in the absence of an elected Managing Committee, the Administrator/Administrative Committee is to discharge the onerous duty of maintenance of control and discipline of the employees of the Bank. In that regard, the following sub-sections of Sections 32 and 33 of the KCS Act assume relevance. Section 32(4) of the KCS Act provides thus:- “32.(4) The committee or administrator or administrators so appointed shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as he may from time to time give, have power to exercise all or any of the powers and functions of the committee or of any officer of the society and take such action as may be required in the interests of the society.” Sections 33(1)(b) and 33(2) of the KCS Act read thus:- “33. Appointment of new committee or administrator on failure to constitute committee etc. (1) Where the term of office of a committee has expired and a new committee has not been constituted, or where a no-confidence motion is passed by the general body against the existing committee or where the existing committee resigns enbloc or where vacancies occur in the committee either by resignation or otherwise and the number of remaining members cannot constitute the quorum for the meeting of the committee, or where the committee fails to hold its regular meeting consecutively for six months or where the Registrar is satisfied. …......................................................... (b) that a new committee is prevented from entering upon office or a new committee fails to enter upon office, on the date on which the term of office of the existing committee expires, the Registrar may, either suo motu or on application of any member of the society, after intimating the Circle Co-operative Union, appoint one Administrator or an administrative committee consisting of not more than three individuals, who need not be member of the society, one among them as convener to manage the affairs of the society, for a period not exceeding six months as may be specified in the order, which period may, at the discretion of the Registrar and for reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended, from time to time, so, however, that the aggregate period shall not, in any case, exceed one year or till a new committee enters upon office, whichever is earlier.
(2) The administrator or administrative committee appointed under Sub-sections (1) & (1A) shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as he may from time to time give, have power to exercise all or any of the powers and functions of the committee or of any officer of the society and take all such action as may be required in the interest of the society.” (underline supplied) 10. The afore-extracted provisions would undoubtedly reveal that the appointment of Administrator/Administrative Committee in contingencies, envisaged under Sections 32 and 33 of the KCS Act is meant for avoidance of a vacuum in the matter of administration of a society and the Administrator/Administrative Committee thus appointed has got a bounden duty to manage the affairs of the society during the period of continuance to protect the interests of the society. In that regard, the Administrator or Administrative Committee would be having the power to exercise all or any of the powers and functions of the committee or of any officer of the society and to take all such actions as may be required in the interests of the society. The legislative intention in regard to the conferment of power on an Administrator or an Administrative Committee substituting a Managing Committee for any of the statutorily recognized reasons, is evident from the change in the course of law on the subject. Prior to the amendment brought in as per the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act 1 of 2000) to Sections 32(4) and 33(2) of the KCS Act they stood as hereunder:- “32.(4) the committee or administrator or administrators so appointed shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as he may from time to time give, have power to exercise all or any of the functions of the committee or of any officer the society and take such action as may be required in the interests of the society.
33.(2) The committee or administrator or administrators appointed under Subsections (1) & (1A) shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as he may from time to time give, have power to exercise all or any of the functions of the committee or of any officer of the society and take all such action as may be required in the interest of the society.” (underline supplied) As per Act 1 of 2000 in sub-section (4) of Section 32 for the words “have power to exercise all or any of the functions”, the words “have power to exercise all or any of the powers and functions” have been substituted. So also in Section 33(2) for the words “have power to exercise all or any of the functions”, the words “have power to exercise all or any of the powers and functions” have been substituted. Thus, the unamended and amended Sections 32(4) and 33(2) would reveal that as per Act 1 of 2000 virtually the words “powers and” were inserted in between the words “any of the” and “functions” and thereby the Administrator or Administrative Committee were given the power to exercise all or any of the “powers” besides all or any of the “functions”, of the committee or of any officer of the society and take all such action as may be required in the interests of the society. Even then it has to be understood that an Administrator or Administrative Committee appointed under Sections 32 and 33(1) of the KCS Act by the Registrar is neither a substitute nor an alternative for the democratically elected Managing Committee of the society. In other words, a Co-operative Society should ordinarily be allowed to function through its elected representatives. In view of the said position the Hon'ble Apex Court held in the decision in Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala v. T.A.Kuttappan reported in AIR 2000 SC 2378 that an Administrator or an Administrative Committee got no power to enroll new members and a Co-operative Society is expected to function in a democratic manner through an elected committee of management and that committee of management is empowered to enroll new members.
In the decision in Thrissur District Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala reported in 2003 (2) KLT 606 this Court held that major policy decisions in respect of Co-operative Society could not be taken by an Administrator or an Administrative Committee. True that in Gangadharan v. Administrator reported in 1988 (1) KLT 624 this Court held that an Administrator or an Administrative Committee is/are only nominee/nominees of the Registrar and it is not desirable that the Administrator/Administrative Committee should be enabled to exercise all the powers and functions of the Managing Committee and therefore, it would be sufficient to enable them to discharge only routine functions. Bearing in mind the aforesaid decisions as also the amendments brought to Sections 32(4) and 33(2) of the KCS Act the said question has to be considered. Going by the statutory provisions the appointment of Administrator or Administrative Committee shall be for a period not exceeding six months and extendable by a further period not exceeding six months. When such a long period of management under Administrator or Administrative Committee is permissible and taking note of the business to be transacted by a Cooperative Bank or a Co-operative Society it would not be in the interest of the Bank/society to say that an erring officer should not be dealt with in accordance with law by the Administrator or Administrative Committee and the Administrator or Administrative Committee is empowered only to impose penalty as permitted under Rule 198(5) of the KCS Rules that too, only where the disciplinary proceedings have already been initiated and enquiry report has been filed while the elected committee was in office. The Administrator or the Administrative Committee cannot be an onlooker as relates the affairs of the society concerned. The afore-extracted provisions under the KCS Act would reveal that to protect the interests of the society an Administrator or Administrative Committee may have to invoke all or any of the powers of the committee or of any officer of the society and to take appropriate action. In the light of the various provisions under the KCS Act and Rules, more particularly, Rule 198, it can only be held that the committee of a society is vested with the power coupled with a duty to control and maintain discipline of its employees which will definitely take in the power to initiate action in accordance with law against erring employees.
Considering the nature of transactions and business to be effected by a Co-operative Society or a Co-operative Bank control and maintenance of discipline is of paramount importance and any laches or lapses in that matter may lead to malpractice, misappropriation etc. Hence, there is no room for complacency in such matters in the functioning of a Co-operative Bank. If control and maintenance of discipline is treated as routine affairs to be looked into by the Managing Committee the Administrator/Administrative Committee appointed in place of the committee of a society for reasons recognized by the statute, is equally bound to discharge that function during the period of continuance and in its discharge it may also have to invoke all or any power of the committee or any officer of the society. How can the appellant contend that such functions need not be discharged by an Administrator or an Administrative Committee ? Needless to say that when an Administrator or an Administrative Committee is appointed in place of committee of a society to manage the affairs of the society concerned, for a dutiful discharge of such functions the Administrator or Administrative Committee should exercise such powers of the committee to control and maintain discipline in the society. How can the appellant be heard to contend that even in case of commission of serious misconduct warranting disciplinary action the Administrator/Administrative Committee should, after placing the employee concerned under suspension, wait for the assumption of office by an elected committee without initiating disciplinary proceedings and continue to pay subsistence allowance. We do not propose to accept such a contention as any such action would go against the interests of the society concerned. In short, when the Administrator/Administrative Committee has to exercise all or any of the powers and functions of the committee or any officer of the society and to take such action as may be required to protect the interests of the society the Administrator/Administrative Committee may be compelled to take appropriate disciplinary action in exercise of the powers and functions of the committee or that of any officer of the society. This position found statutory recognition under proviso to Rule 198(5) of the KCS Rules. It reads thus:- “198.(5) No appeal shall be entertained if it is not preferred within a period of three months from the date of the order imposing the penalty.
This position found statutory recognition under proviso to Rule 198(5) of the KCS Rules. It reads thus:- “198.(5) No appeal shall be entertained if it is not preferred within a period of three months from the date of the order imposing the penalty. Provided that where the penalties are imposed on employee by an administrator or an administrative committee, such employees can file appeal before the forthcoming elected committee and in such cases the restriction of three months shall not be applicable.” (emphasis added) The definition given to the term 'committee' under section 2(e) of the KCS Act is to be looked into to appreciate the position. It reads thus: “2.(e) “Committee” means the governing body of a cooperative society by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the society is entrusted. 11. In the contextual situation it is relevant to refer to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Elamgulam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Gopinathan Nair ( 2007 (1) KLT 147 ) rendered relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala v. T.A.Kuttappan reported in AIR 2000 SC 2378 . It was held in Elamgulam case (supra) that the doctrine of necessity would apply in such situations. It was held that on the appointment of the Administrator, the functions of the President, Sub-Committee and Managing Committee contemplated under the Cooperative Societies Act vest in the Administrator alone. Without exercising these functions by the Administrator the Society cannot carry on its business effectively which is the sole object of an appointment of the Administrator and that unlike enrollment of new members to the society concerned which can certainly wait till an elected body takes charge without affecting the functions of the Society, it was further held therein. Furthermore, it was held that the facts that under the Rules, Sub Committee is the disciplinary authority over whose decision the petitioner has a right of appeal and imposition of penalty by the Administrator would deny the right of appeal, could not affect the validity of the order of punishment imposed by the Administrator ex necessitate.
Furthermore, it was held that the facts that under the Rules, Sub Committee is the disciplinary authority over whose decision the petitioner has a right of appeal and imposition of penalty by the Administrator would deny the right of appeal, could not affect the validity of the order of punishment imposed by the Administrator ex necessitate. In view of proviso to Rule 198(5) extracted hereinbefore, which was inserted by SRO 829/10 published in Kerala Gazette Vol.55 dated 18.8.2010, now such situation does not arise and in fact, as against any such order an appeal could be filed before the forthcoming elected committee, without the restriction of three months time provided for preference of an appeal. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant contended with reference to sub-rules (2A) and (2B) of Rule 198 of the KCS Rules that the situation empowering the Administrator/Administrative Committee to impose penalty under proviso to Rule 198(5) would arise and operate only in a case where a duly elected Managing Committee during its tenure initiated and continued with the disciplinary proceedings, in accordance with law, and after its cessation in office what is left to be done in the disciplinary proceedings by the Administrator/ Administrative Committee is only the imposition of penalty. In short, the nub of the contentions is that by virtue of proviso to Rule 198(5), the Administrator/Administrative Committee could impose penalty on an employee only if disciplinary proceedings were initiated and enquiry report was also filed while the Managing Committee was in office and imposition of penalty alone was left to be done. It is further contended that in all other circumstances, according to the learned counsel, even when initiation of disciplinary proceedings is inevitable in the interests of the society, the Administrator/Administrative Committee could only place the employee concerned under suspension pending enquiry and initiation as also continuance with the disciplinary action should be left to the forthcoming elected committee. We have no hesitation to hold that the said contention is nothing but a cavil and if accepted, would work out detrimental to the interests of the society concerned.
We have no hesitation to hold that the said contention is nothing but a cavil and if accepted, would work out detrimental to the interests of the society concerned. The contention that the disciplinary sub-committee alone could initiate disciplinary proceedings cannot be accepted, even in a case where elected committee is in power, in view of the provision under sub-rule (2B) of Rule 198 of the KCS Rules as also the decision in Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joshy Varghese ( 2020 (4) KLT 129 ). The said decision was rendered after referring to the provisions under Rule 198 of KCS Rules. In the decision it was held that a committee of a society has to initiate disciplinary action by issuing memo of charges and the disciplinary sub-committee constituted by it could only enquire into such charges by itself or through an external agency and then impose appropriate penalty in case the delinquent is held as guilty. Going by sub-rule (2A) extracted above the Committee of a society shall constitute 'a disciplinary committee' and going by sub-rule (2B) the disciplinary sub-committee so constituted shall inquire into the charges against the employee, either by themselves or by engaging an external agency. If the contention of the appellant is accepted it would suggest that firstly, a 'disciplinary sub-committee' is to be constituted and then the task of framing the charge should be left to the 'disciplinary sub-committee'. We are unable to accept the said contention. The charge-sheet is an allegation of misconduct, misbehaviour, indiscipline, lack of interest in work, negligence etc., issued with the object to inform the delinquent employee what he is supposed or alleged to have done. Normally, he will be asked thereunder to give his explanation within a specified time. If the delinquent employee denies the charge and explains his conduct in a satisfactory manner the employer may accept the explanation and drop further proceedings. Then, there is no need to conduct an enquiry. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings would arise when the delinquent employee refutes the charges in his explanation and the employer considers the explanation unsatisfactorily and arrives at the decision to proceed with. In the decision in Union of India and Others v. Anil Kumar Sarkar [ (2013) 4 SCC 161 ] the Hon'ble Apex Court held that departmental proceedings would commence only when the charge sheet is issued to delinquent employee.
In the decision in Union of India and Others v. Anil Kumar Sarkar [ (2013) 4 SCC 161 ] the Hon'ble Apex Court held that departmental proceedings would commence only when the charge sheet is issued to delinquent employee. That is why when the explanation of the delinquent employee is found satisfactory decision is being taken to drop disciplinary proceedings. In the decision in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Gandhi reported in 2013 (1) KLT SN.121 (C.No.106) SC the Apex Court held that decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings could not be subsequent to issuance of charge-sheet. Sub-rule (2B) of Rule 198 of KCS Rules would go to show that the disciplinary sub-committee constituted under sub-rule (2A) thereof, shall inquire into the charges against the employee. We have already taken note of the fact that the committee of a society could drop the disciplinary proceedings. In such circumstances, one can only say that the stage of constitution of a 'disciplinary subcommittee' to enquire into the charges need be constituted by the committee of a society invoking the power under sub-rule (2A) of Rule 198 only if the explanation of the delinquent employee is found unnecessary and it is found that disciplinary action is called for. Viewing the sequence of disciplinary action in the aforesaid manner how can it be said that the 'disciplinary sub-committee' which is supposed to inquire into the charges is the authority to frame the charges. Taking into account the said aspects it can only be held that it is for the committee of a society to initiate disciplinary proceedings by issuing a memo of charges and the 'disciplinary sub-committee' constituted by the committee of the society could only inquire into such charges either by itself or through an external agency. 13. As noticed hereinbefore, if control and maintenance of discipline is treated as day today affairs or routine affairs to be managed by the Managing Committee of a society the Administrator or Administrative Committee appointed in place of the committee of a society, for reasons recognized by the Statute, is bound to discharge its functions during the period of continuance. While doing so, if a situation arises to deal with an erring employee of the society, certainly, action in accordance with law must be taken by the Administrator or Administrative Committee, to fulfill the statutory mandate to protect the interests of the society.
While doing so, if a situation arises to deal with an erring employee of the society, certainly, action in accordance with law must be taken by the Administrator or Administrative Committee, to fulfill the statutory mandate to protect the interests of the society. Any lethargic attitude in such matters would not be in the interests of the society. When the proviso to Rule 198(5) of the KCS Rules makes it clear that penalties could be imposed on an employee by an Administrator or Administrative Committee the contention that such exercise of power is possible only in cases where an elected committee initiated disciplinary proceedings and the disciplinary sub-committee constituted by the committee of the society conducted enquiry or caused it to be conducted through an external agency and then ceased to be in power before concluding the proceedings by imposing penalty, cannot be comprehended in the absence of specific exclusion of powers to initiate and continue with, disciplinary proceedings by an Administrator or Administrative Committee. When statutory power to punish is conferred on an Administrator/Administrative Committee it should necessarily have the power to do all actions in accordance with law, up to the stage of imposition of penalty as well, against an erring employee, during continuance in office in view of the doctrine of necessity and in view of the provisions under Rules 32(4), 33(2) and 198(5) of the KCS Rules lest the conferment of power would be meaningless and purposeless. In that regard, besides the decision in Elamgulam case (supra) we think that the analogy in the decisions rendered by this Court in Mathewkunju v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies ( 2000 (1) KLT 817 ) and V.T.Mary v. Kuzhur Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. No.540 and Another ( 2006 (1) KLT 323 ) also fortify our view. For the forgoing reasons we do not find any merit in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed.