Rama Kant v. Provincial Co-Operative Federation of U.P., Thru. Its Managing Director and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2024WRIA/3125/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging punishment orders imposing both censure entry and recovery from pay after an inordinate delay. Relying on a Full Bench ruling that only one punishment is permissible under Regulation 84 of the Regulations, 1975, the Court issued notice for counter affidavit and stayed recovery.

What did the court decide?

Interim direction that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner until further orders; counter affidavit to be filed within three weeks.

Rama Kant vs Provincial Co-Operative Federation of… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 20

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3125 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Rama Kant

¶4

Respondent :- Provincial Co-Operative Federation Of U.P., Thru. Its Managing Director And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- Sunil Sharma,Birendra Prasad Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Birendra Prasad Singh, Advocate is taken on record.

¶7

Office is directed to print the name of Sri Birendra Prasad Singh as counsel for the opposite parties.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Birendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶9

Under challenge is the orders dated 4th April 2024 and 5th December 2023 passed by the opposite parties.

¶10

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 11th March 2014, a disciplinary proceeding was instituted against the petitioner while appointing an Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, in the year 2015. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice on 26th May 2016, and the final decision was taken by the disciplinary authority on 5th December 2023, i.e., after passing of about seven years.

¶11

Adding his arguments, he submitted that against, the order dated 5th December 2023, the petitioner preferred an appeal and thereafter, once the recovery was not stayed by the appellate authority, a Writ-A No. 207 of 2024 was preferred before this Court, wherein, this Court passed an order dated 23.01.2024.

¶12

The order dated 23.01.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 207 of 2024, is quoted hereinunder:-

¶13

"1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Anindya Shastri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

¶14

2. Although, petition has been filed challenging order dated

¶15

05.12.2023 imposing punishment upon petitioner including that of recovery but learned counsel for petitioner submits that against the aforesaid punishment order, he has already preferred an appeal on 12.12.2023 in accordance with Rule 85 of the relevant Regulations of 1980. It is submitted that the appeal is still pending consideration while recovery has already been commenced to be effected against petitioner.

¶16

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties on the basis of instructions submits that an appeal may be directed to be decided expeditiously.

¶17

4. Considering innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, opposite party No.2 i.e. Chairman, Provincial Cooperative Federation of U.P. is directed to decide appeal preferred by petitioner dated 12.12.2023 against the punishment order dated 05.12.2023 expeditiously within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before concerned authority. It is also directed that till final decision in the appeal, no recovery shall be effected from petitioner.

¶18

5. With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed of ."

¶19

Referring the aforesaid he submits that during the pendency of hearing of the appeal, the proceeding of recovery is stayed. Further submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the order, the disciplinary authority awarded, two major punishments; one is sensor entry and secondly, recovery from the pay. He next submits that so far as the provision of Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 is concerned, only one punishment should have been awarded and this issue has also been settled by a full Bench of this Court, in case of Pancham Ram Yadav Vs. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. and another passed in Special Appeal No. 435 of 2008 , wherein, while answering the question referred to the full bench, it has been held as under:-

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(2) The Division Bench judgment in Virendra Kumar Gupta's case (supra) lays down correct law and otherwise view expressed by learned Single Judge in Satya Narain Mishra's case (supra) as also expressed in the Reference order is not correct position of law."

¶23

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the law has been settled on this issue and the action, so far as the order passed by the disciplinary authority is concerned that goes against the settled proposition of law as well as the provisions prescribed under Section 84 of the Regulations 1975. Therefore, submission is that the impugned orders may be quashed.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties have opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that a detailed order has been passed by the disciplinary authority while considering the enquiry report and providing opportunity to the petitioner and further added that the order passed by the appellate authority does not suffer any illegality or infirmity as the same has been passed while assigning the reasons.

¶25

Considering the submission of the counsel for the parties, it transpires that two punishments are awarded one is the sensor entry and the next one is for making recovery from the pay of the petitioner, which is not permissible under law.

¶26

Thus, prima facie, there seems to be force in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

Matter requires consideration.

¶28

Let counter affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within a period of three weeks.

¶29

A weeks' time thereafter is granted for filing render affidavit.

¶30

List thereafter.

¶31

Until further orders, no recovery shall be made from the petitioner.

¶32

Order Date :- 23.4.2024 Anurag, PS Gr-I

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rama Kant v. Provincial Co-Operative Federation of U.P., Thru. Its Managing Director and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Kant v. Provincial Co-Operative Federation of U.P., Thru. Its Managing Director and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.R.S. Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director Narendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Amar Nath and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Raj Kumar vs Deputy Commissioner Stamp Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya and 2 Others

Mohd. Ateeq and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp and Registration Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Lakshmi @ Lakshman Prasad Yadav and Another vs Guddu and Others

Harsh Verma and Others vs Ramkali and Others