In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Harisankar V. Menon, settled a long-standing dispute involving the Palakkad District Co-operative Bank Managing Committee and K.V. Raghavan, a former employee accused of using a forged certificate to secure employment. The court upheld the decision of the bank to terminate Raghavan’s services, dismissing his plea for reinstatement with back wages.
Case Background:
The litigation between the parties, documented under W.P.(C) No. 40300 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No. 25184 of 2019, originated in 1989 when Raghavan was dismissed from his post following an internal investigation that revealed his appointment was secured using a fabricated employment certificate from the Moongilmada Service Co-operative Bank. Initially hired under a quota reserved for employees of member societies, Raghavan was found to have misrepresented his credentials during recruitment.
The Managing Committee initiated disciplinary proceedings, resulting in a domestic inquiry that confirmed Raghavan’s alleged misrepresentation. He was terminated based on these findings. Subsequently, Raghavan pursued multiple legal remedies, including an industrial dispute in 1992, which he withdrew. A parallel criminal case also ensued, culminating in his acquittal in 2006, albeit on technical grounds related to charge framing.
Legal Issues Examined:
1. Validity of Domestic Inquiry Findings:
The core issue revolved around the legitimacy of the domestic inquiry that concluded Raghavan had forged documents to secure employment. The court examined whether the findings of the domestic inquiry could stand despite his criminal acquittal.
2. Impact of Criminal Acquittal on Disciplinary Proceedings:
Raghavan contended that his acquittal in the criminal case should negate the disciplinary proceedings. In response, the court reiterated that departmental inquiries and criminal trials serve different objectives and adhere to different standards of proof. As cited by Justice Menon:
“Acquittal by a criminal court does not automatically absolve an employee from disciplinary action; these proceedings operate in different spheres.”
3. Entitlement to Reinstatement and Back Wages:
Raghavan’s demand for reinstatement with back wages, as awarded by the Kerala Co-operative Arbitration Court in 2015, was also reviewed. The arbitration court had based its decision solely on Raghavan’s criminal acquittal. However, Justice Menon invalidated this award, citing the findings of the domestic inquiry.
Judgment Highlights:
The High Court set aside the Arbitration Court’s decision, rejecting Raghavan’s claim for reinstatement and back wages. The judgment also emphasized that acquittal in a criminal trial, based on technical grounds, cannot override factual findings from a domestic inquiry conducted in accordance with service rules.
Justice Menon cited past rulings, including Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, underscoring that the standards of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings differ significantly. He observed:
“In a criminal trial, guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, while disciplinary proceedings rely on the preponderance of probabilities.”
The court also addressed the issue of delay in seeking relief, noting that Raghavan waited for several years after his acquittal to file for reinstatement. Justice Menon described this delay as evidence of “laches,” or negligence in pursuing a legal remedy.
Compassionate Treatment Suggested:
Despite dismissing Raghavan’s claims on legal grounds, the court acknowledged his age and health conditions. Justice Menon allowed Raghavan to file a representation for “compassionate benefits,” which the Palakkad District Co-operative Bank must consider within a month, though not as a matter of right.
Case Details:
– Case Number: W.P.(C) Nos. 40300 of 2017 and 25184 of 2019
– Petitioner: Palakkad District Co-operative Bank Managing Committee
– Respondent: K.V. Raghavan
– Bench: Justice Harisankar V. Menon
– Petitioner’s Counsel: P. Ravindran (Sr.), Aparna Rajan, Liza Meghan Cyriac, Sreedhar Ravindran
– Respondent’s Counsel: K. Mohanakannan, A.R. Pravitha
