Allowed

Ram Pal Singh v. Coop. Cane Development Union Ltd. Thru Secy. and Anr.

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2019WRIA/14208/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order directing salary deduction for losses incurred during his tenure as a Seasonal Clerk. The Court held the order void as no disciplinary proceedings were held under applicable regulations and the authority acted without following statutory prerequisites.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26.7.2002 is quashed and recovered amount to be refunded within two months.

Ram Pal Singh Vs Coop. Cane Development Union Ltd… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14208 of 2003

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Pal Singh Respondent :- Coop. Cane Development Union Ltd. Thru Secy. And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Mehra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.M.N. Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Atul Mehra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravindra Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

Petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.7.2002 passed by District Cane Officer on the ground that respondent no.2 is simply an Ex-officio Chairman of District Cane Service Authority and no order can be passed by him without the decision of the said authority. In nutshell, case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Seasonal Clerk in the year 1975 and his services are governed by U.P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975 . It is alleged that certain irregularities were committed by then Secretary of the Society against whom petitioner had lodged a First Information Report in the year 1996. Consequently, the petitioner was suspended by order dated 3.12.1996. He challenged the suspension order by filing Writ Petition No.35348 of 1996 and the same was stayed by this Court. It is further submitted that neither any disciplinary proceedings were initiated, nor any charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner. It was in the year 2002 that order impugned was passed directing to deduct the

¶7

amount on the basis of legal advice from the salary of the petitioner.

¶8

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to Regulation 68 and 69 of U.P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975 hereinafter called as 'Regulations' and submits that no enquiry as contemplated was held nor any punishment was awarded as such without quantifying any loss so caused to the institution no amount of money can be recovered from the petitioner.

¶9

Sri Mehra, Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon Regulation 35(2) wherein the Recruitment and Appointing Authority and their constitutions in regard to Seasonal Clerks is the District Cane Service Authority. He further invited attention of the Court to Regulation 27 which is in regard to the disciplinary proceedings and according to the same if any complaint against the seasonal staff, then the Secretary of the Union shall make a preliminary enquiry, and if he is satisfied that a prima facie is established against the person concerned, he shall intimate the same to him in form of charge and call for his explanation. Further Secretary of the Union shall examine the explanation, documents and connected records and submit his final report along with definite recommendation to the District or Zonal Authority as the case may be for passing final order. Further the proceedings shall be in summary nature and the Secretary should not take more than a month to complete the same. Further District or Zonal Authority as

¶10

the case may be will dispose of the case within one month of receipt of the final report from the Secretary. In case of default on part of Secretary of the Cane Union or the District or Zonal Authority as the case may be in not completing the disciplinary proceeding against the seasonal staff by the end of crushing season, the same shall be deemed to have automatically dropped.

¶11

He further contents that in the present case neither any enquiry was conducted by the Secretary of the Union nor any report was placed before the Authority concerned nor any decision was taken by the District Authority as such the order impugned passed by respondent no.2 is null and void.

¶12

Per contra, Sri Ravindra Singh appearing for the respondents has invited attention to Para 7 of the counter affidavit and submitted that enquiry committee consisting of 3 senior Cane Development Inspector was constituted who submitted enquiry report dated 3.8.1996, and it was found that petitioner has misconducted himself and put the society to loss. He further submitted that the order dated 26.7.2002 was passed on the basis of order dated 6.7.2002 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Cane Cooperative Union Fedretation, Lucknow.

¶13

As far as the disciplinary proceedings as contemplated under Regulation 27 is concerned, Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents very fairly conceded the fact that from perusal of the order impugned dated 26.7.2002, it appears that no such enquiry was held nor any report was submitted nor any

¶14

decision was taken by the District Authority as provided in the said regulation.

¶15

Having considered the rival submission of the parties and going through the relevant provisions of the Regulations of 1975, it is clear that the order impugned has been passed by the District Cane Development Officer relying upon the orders passed by the Managing Director.

¶16

From perusal of the said order, it appears that no disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated in view of Regulation 27 and the averment in the counter affidavit to the effect that the 3 Member Committee was constituted to enquire into the matter and after the submission of the report, the petitioner was directed to make good the losses so incurred. Further from the perusal of counter affidavit, no averment has been made in regard to any disciplinary proceedings being initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner being given opportunity to defend himself and the report so submitted appears to be an ex-parte report which is being relied upon by the respondents. Further the order impugned has not been passed relying upon any enquiry report or on the basis of any disciplinary proceedings which concluded holding the petitioner liable for the loss. The U.P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulation, 1975 are clear and Regulation 27 specifically provides for disciplinary proceedings and no such proceedings were initiated by the respondents so as to make the petitioner liable for any pecuniary loss. Neither there is a single whisper in the counter affidavit

¶17

filed by the respondent that any disciplinary proceedings as contemplated under Regulation 27 was ever held by the respondents. Further the argument of Sri Mehra, Counsel for the petitioner has forced that respondent no.2 was not competent to pass the order impugned as it is only after the decision of the District Authority that consequential order is passed by respondent no.2, who is the ex-officio Chairman of the said Authority, but in the present case no such disciplinary proceedings as contemplated under Regulation 27 were held and the respondent no.2 had wrongly directed the petitioner to deposit the amount.

¶18

In view of the above, order dated 26.7.2002 passed by respondent no.2 is quashed, however, it is further directed that as the amount had already been recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶19

In view of the above, writ petition stands allowed . Order Date :- 11.3.2019 S. Singh

Ram Pal Singh v. Coop. Cane Development Union Ltd. Thru Secy. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pal Singh v. Coop. Cane Development Union Ltd. Thru Secy. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanki Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijaypal Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Amroha and Another Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Cooperative Society, Lucknow and 3 Others

Kushal Pal Singh Vs Coop. Cane Development Union Ltd. Thru Secy. and Anr.

Kushalpal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Cane Commissioner and 2 Ors.

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another