Allowed

Pancham Ram Yadav v. the U.P. Co-Operative Federatin Ltd. Thru M.D. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019SPLA/435/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Special Appeal against a Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition challenging dismissal and recovery. The appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order and remitting the matter to the Single Judge without adjudicating other grounds.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 12.11.2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge to decide the matter expeditiously.

Pancham Ram Yadav Vs the U.P. Co-Operative… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 435 of 2008

¶3

Appellant :- Pancham Ram Yadav Respondent :- The U.P. Co-Operative Federatin Ltd. Thru M.D. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- ,Chandan Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Gopal Tripathi,V.C. Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.G. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶6

This appeal is directed against order dated 12.11.2007 passed by learned Single Judge by which two writ petitions namely Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31561 of 2000 (Ram Singh vs. The U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. and others) and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18891 of 2000 filed by appellant against punishment order dated 03.03.2000, by which the services of the appellant were dispensed with were dismissed.

¶7

Before proceeding to examine the grounds on which the appellant has challenged the order of learned Single Judge, we consider it proper to record that Special Appeal No. 1264 of 2010 (Ram Singh vs. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. and others) was allowed by another coordinate Bench this Court by order dated 27.02.2018, by which the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as punishment order qua appellant, Ram Singh were quashed and the matter was remitted back to the department for holding a fresh enquiry against Ram Singh from the stage of submission of charge-sheet.

¶8

It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that by impugned order dated 12.11.2017, before the Writ Court that the petitioner was awarded two punishments namely dismissal from service and recovery of Rs.2,69,130.14 from the appellant.

¶9

The question whether the respondent no. 3 was legally justified in according two punishments to the appellant was argued before the another co-ordinate Bench in this appeal and was referred to Full Bench and the reference was answered by the Full Bench on 02.09.2019 and the two questions referred to were answered by the Full Bench as under:

¶10

"42. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us as under:

¶11

(1) Since evident contradiction in the language of Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 and Rule 83 of Rules, 1980, the aforesaid provisions cannot be harmonized, hence Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 shall prevail over Rule 83 of Rules, 1980 and only one of the punishments prescribed can be imposed as specifically stated in Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975.

¶12

(2) The Division Bench judgment in Virendra Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others in Service Bench No. 614 of 2009 , decided on 28.07.2015 lays down correct law and otherwise view expressed by learned Single Judge in Satya Narain Mishra Vs. Prabandh Nideshak and another : 2002 (1) AWC 582 as also expressed in the Reference order is not correct position of law."

¶13

Thus, in view of the answer given by the Full Bench, we have no hesitation in holding that the respondent no. 3 could not have awarded two punishments to the petitioner for misconduct which was allegedly proved during the enquiry against the appellant.

¶14

Reverting back to the merits of the case, we find that learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the dismissal order on several grounds including the ground that learned Single Judge while passing the impugned

¶15

order had not even adverted to the case of appellant and had decided the writ petition preferred by appellant by the same judgment by which the writ petition filed by Ram Singh was decided by him after considering the case of Ram Singh. Since upon perusal of the order passed by learned Single Judge, this appeal can be allowed on the aforesaid ground alone, we do not consider it necessary to adjudicate upon the other grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant in the challenge of the impugned orders as we intend to remit back the matter to the learned Single Judge and leave it open to him to examine all the grounds which the learned counsel for the appellant may raise before him challenging the correctness and validity of the order of dismissal.

¶16

The appeal is allowed. The order dated 12.11.2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to learned Single Judge. As the matter is extremely old, we request the learned Single Judge to decide this appeal, expeditiously.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.12.2019 V.S.Singh

Pancham Ram Yadav v. the U.P. Co-Operative Federatin Ltd. Thru M.D. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pancham Ram Yadav v. the U.P. Co-Operative Federatin Ltd. Thru M.D. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalyan Health Care Products Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Dilip Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Shyamakant Vs Smt. Rakesh Yadav and Others

G.M.Personnel Uco Banks and Others Vs Dhiraj Kumar Dixit

Smt.Jareena Vs State of U.P. and Another