Bombay High Court at Goa Hears Writ Petitions Challenging Dismissal from Service by Co-operative Bank. Petitioners Allege Violation of Natural Justice in Inquiry While Respondents Contend Availability of Alternative Remedy Under Industrial Disputes Act.

Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash suspension, charge-sheet, inquiry proceedings, inquiry report, show cause notice, and dismissal order from service by a co-operative bank.

Quashing of the entire disciplinary proceedings and the dismissal orders dated 02.05.2015, and reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

Petitioners alleged that the domestic inquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, including denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to examine defence witnesses, and that subsistence allowance was not paid, impairing their ability to defend.

The inquiry officer found the petitioners guilty of all charges. The management issued show cause notice and thereafter dismissed the petitioners from service.

Whether the Goa State Co-operative Bank is a 'State' or other authority under Article 12 of the Constitution, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in light of the alternative remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Whether the inquiry proceedings violated principles of natural justice due to denial of adjournment and opportunity to cross-examine and examine witnesses. Whether non-payment of subsistence allowance during suspension affects the validity of the inquiry.

Petitioners argued that the bank performs public functions and is a State under Article 12; that the inquiry breached natural justice as adjournment was refused and they were precluded from participating; that non-payment of subsistence allowance deprived them of effective defence; that even if alternate remedy exists, the court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 given the breach of natural justice. Respondents contended that the bank is not a State under Article 12; that the dispute is an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act and an alternate efficacious remedy exists; that writ petitions involve disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under Article 226; that subsistence allowance was paid and inquiry was fair.

the dispute raised by the petitioners of their termination is an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the dispute in the matter of termination can be raised by an individual workman under Section 2A of the said Act. the respondents are neither a State nor an other authority as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such, no writ can lie against the respondents. the main grievance of the petitioners is that the whole inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer is in breach of the principles of natural justice as according to him a short adjournment sought by the petitioners was refused

Petitioners were employees of the Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd. By orders dated 07.07.2010 and 21.08.2010, they were suspended pending domestic inquiry. Charge-sheets were issued on 06.10.2010 and 12.10.2010, to which they replied contesting the charges. An inquiry was conducted; the inquiry report dated 28.12.2011 found them guilty. They challenged the report alleging violation of natural justice. A show cause notice was issued, and after three years, on 02.05.2015, the dismissal orders were passed. The petitioners filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court at Goa seeking to quash the entire disciplinary proceedings.

• Constitution of India: Article 12, Article 21, Article 226, Article 227
• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2A
• Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960:
• Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002: