The petitioner, a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P7 order of the 1st respondent by which, an enquiry report submitted under Section 65 of the Act has been rejected and a fresh enquiry ordered. According to Adv.Sri.M.Sasindran who appears for the petitioner, the entire proceedings are initiated at the instance of the 3rd respondent who is holding a hostile animus against the society. It is stated that, his unreasonable interference has been noticed in Ext.P1 proceedings by the Joint Director of Audit. Thereafter, he was transferred from the said post by Ext.P2. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C).No.27287 of 2013 complaining of the actions of the 3rd respondent. However, the said writ petition was disposed of, since the 3rd respondent had been transferred by Ext.P2.
2. According to the counsel, even thereafter, the 3rd respondent had been interfering in the affairs of the petitioner. He had submitted Ext.P4 long after the date of his transfer recommending that an enquiry under Section 65 be conducted into the affairs of the Society. Thereafter, by Ext.P5 the 1st respondent ordered such an enquiry be conducted. Pursuant to Ext.P5, an enquiry was conducted, the report of which is Ext.P6. By Ext.P7, the 1st respondent has rejected the report and has directed a fresh enquiry under Section 65 to be conducted. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the entire exercise is intended to supersede the elected Managing Committee of the Society. Since an enquiry under Section 65 has already been completed, it is for the 1st respondent to consider the enquiry report and to take further action thereon in accordance with Sub Sections 3 to 6 of Section 65 of the Act. It is contended that, the 1st respondent does not have any power to reject the report that has already been submitted and to order a fresh enquiry.
3. The learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in 1976 KLT SN 65 (C.No.145) to contend that, the Registrar has ample powers under Section 65 to order a fresh enquiry as done in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision reported in K.R.Deb v. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong [AIR 1971 (SC) 1447] to contend that a fresh enquiry is not permissible.
4. Heard. Section 65 of the Act confers power on the 1st respondent to order an enquiry into the affairs of any Society, where circumstances justify such action. Enquiry can be conducted on his own motion or on the basis of records that are made mention of in the said provision. There is no prohibition in Section 65 against ordering a second enquiry as done in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any provision of law or decision of Court that limits the power on the 1st respondent in ordering such an enquiry.
5. In the present case, the report Ext.P6 submitted by the Enquiry Officer was considered by the 1st respondent. It has been found that, on some of the points with respect to which enquiry had been ordered, the report was silent. Or in other words, the enquiry has not been conducted on many of the points on which the same was directed to be conducted by Ext.P5. For the said reason, the 1st respondent has rejected the said report and has ordered the conduct of a fresh enquiry. The points on which the enquiry is to be conducted are also enumerated in Ext.P7. Since there is no prohibition in ordering such an enquiry afresh, especially on finding that the enquiry report submitted has not touched upon various aspects on which the enquiry had been ordered, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned proceedings. As already noticed above, this Court has held while considering a similar situation that, in cases where a satisfactory report has not been submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Registrar has ample powers to order a fresh enquiry. I am in respectful agreement with the said dictum.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in K.R.Deb v. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong [AIR 1971 (SC) 1447]. That was a case in which, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against an employee. A domestic enquiry had been conducted into the allegations against the employee. What has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court is that, a defect in a domestic enquiry already conducted, cannot be rectified by conducting another domestic enquiry into the same allegations. The facts of the said case have no application to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the said dictum does not apply here. The petitioner has not been able to show that any prejudice has been caused to it by the ordering of a fresh enquiry as per Ext.P7. No action has been taken against the petitioner yet. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P7.
For the above reasons, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV