Dismissed

Hp State Cooprative Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd. v. Sher Singh Singha (Deceased through LRs Champa Singha) and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC23 Dec 2022CWP/2411/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking 100% back wages when the revisional authority had granted only 50%. Ruling that judicial review is confined to the decision process and not akin to appellate jurisdiction, the Court held it could not read benefits not specifically allowed in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed along with pending miscellaneous applications as there is no merit in seeking benefits not specifically allowed in the impugned order.

Hp State Cooprative Marketing and Consumers… — Cooperative Societies | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.2733 of 2017 alongwith CWP No.2411 of 2018 Decided on: 23^rd December, 2022

¶3

1. CWP No.2733 of 2017

¶4

Champa Singha and others

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Registrar Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh and another

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. CWP No.2411 of 2018 H.P. State Co-operative Marketing and Consumer Federation Limited .....Petitioner Versus

¶10

Sher Singh Singha (deceased) and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CWP No.2733 of 2017 For the petitioners: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Ritta Goswami, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vijay Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶12

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶13

¶14

CWP No.2411 of 2018

¶15

For the petitioner: Mr. Vijay Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for respondents No.1(a) to 1(c).

¶16

Ms. Ritta Goswami, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.2.

¶17

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶18

Being connected, these petitions are taken up together for disposal.

¶19

CWP No.2733 of 2017

¶20

Present petitioners are legal heirs of late Sh. Sher Singh Singha, who had preferred the writ petition. Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, the word ‘Petitioner’ has been used to reflect the status of the legal heirs of Sh. Sher Singh Singha.

¶21

This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:-

¶22

“(ii). That the order dated 24.5.2016, Annexure P-2 may be modified to the extent that instead of 50% back wages, 100% back wages qua service benefits of late Sher Singh Singha may be granted alongwith all consequential benefits of pay, arrears, seniority etc.

¶23

(iii). That a writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued and order dated 3.7.2017 as contained in Annexure P-4, may kindly be quashed and set aside, with further directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of 50% back wages with all consequential benefits as ordered vide order dated 24.5.2016.”

¶24

¶25

No reply to the petition has been filed by the

¶26

respondents.

¶27

2. The record appended with the petition shows that a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner by respondent No.2-Federation on 20.11.2002 levelling the following charges:-

¶28

“i. Sh. Sher Singh Singha deceased handed over less stock worth Rs.11,06,986.87 to Sh. Ramesh Chand, Storekeeper in the presence of the committee on 01.12.2001. Thus, he was charged for misappropriating/embezzling stock items i.e. fertilizers and cartons etc. of the respondent federation worth Rs.11,06,986.87 and disobeying the orders of the management;

¶29

ii. Sh. Sher Singh Singha handed over damaged stock of fertilizer worth Rs.1,04,870.58 in the presence of the committee constituted on 25.09.2001 to Sh. Ramesh Chand, storekeeper on 01.12.2001. Thus, he was charged for negligence/dereliction of duties and carelessness thereby causing loss to the respondent federation to the tune of Rs.1,04,870.58, and

¶30

iii. Sh. Sher Singh Singha sold the fertilizer and cartons worth Rs.3,11,665.20 and only deposited a sum of Rs.91,000/- with the bank against this sale and a sum of Rs.77,267.95 was also shown recoverable from him in the books of the federation. Thus, he was charged for misappropriating the funds of the federations to the tune of Rs.2,97,933.15.”

¶31

An Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his report to the Managing Director of respondent No.2-Federation on 26.05.2007 holding that all three charges were proved against the petitioner. The Managing Director, i.e. the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 16.01.2008, imposed the penalty of removal

¶32

¶33

from service upon the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of the respondentFederation. The same was rejected on 13.05.2010 on the ground of being barred by limitation. The petitioner thereafter filed appeal before respondent No.1 by invoking Rule 3.15 of the Service Rules governing service conditions of the employees of the respondent-Federation. His appeal was treated as revision by respondent No.1. While deciding the revision on 24.05.2016 (Annexure P-2), the revisional authority held as under:-

¶34

“17. There was no proper enquiry held by the authorities and on this short ground I, quash and set aside the impugned orders of removal dated 16.01.2008 of the Managing Director and the decision dated 13.05.2010 of the Board of Directors passed in appeal in the present matter. Since, the appellant/petitioner has died on 11.12.2011, therefore, the matter cannot be remitted to the respondent federation for fresh enquiry. Considering the background of the case and the fact that the order of removal was found to be defective as the principles of natural justice were not properly followed, and the fact that the employee has expired during the pendency of present revision petition, the payment of 50% back wages till the death of the employee would meet the ends of justice. The amount already paid as wages or subsistence allowance during the pendency of the various proceedings shall be deducted from the back wages now directed to be paid.”

¶35

The petitioner thereafter moved an application

¶36

under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) before respondent No.1-Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, seeking clarification of the order dated

¶37

¶38

24.05.2016. The precise prayer of the petitioner in the application was that 50% of the back wages be allowed to the petitioner with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears and seniority. This application was dismissed by respondent No.1 on 03.07.2017 (Annexure P-4) with the following order:-

¶39

“The instant application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the petitioners seeking clarification of order dated 24.05.2016. The petitioners have sought clarification of the operative part of order dated 24.05.2016. The order is clear and unambiguous and, thus, there seems no reason or occasion to give any clarification of the order dated 24.05.2016. Accordingly, application is dismissed.”

¶40

3. The order passed by respondent No.1 on 24.05.2016 only grants 50% of the back wages to the petitioner. No further benefit of pay/arrears etc. has been allowed to the petitioner in the order dated 24.05.2016. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, therefore, justly dismissed the application of the petitioner moved under Section 151 CPC for modification of the order dated 24.05.2016 as the said order was clear and admitted no ambiguity. In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not for this Court to read a benefit as allowed to the petitioner, which has not been specifically allowed to him in the order dated 24.05.2016. It is also well settled that in such like matters,

¶41

¶42

power of judicial review is confined to the decision making process and is not akin to the power of appellate authority. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in eyes of law. It is within the domain of the competent authority to impose punishment in accordance with law. In the instant case, punishment of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority was modified by the revisional authority and Sh. Sher Singh Singha (original writ petitioner) was granted 50% of the back wages till his death on 11.12.2011. In view of specific benefit allowed to the petitioner under the order dated 24.05.2016, no case for allowing any additional benefit is made out. The order so passed cannot be substituted by the Court in the given facts. It has been jointly stated by learned counsel for the parties that benefit allowed to the petitioner in terms of order dated 24.05.2016 stands released to him.

¶43

4. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶44

¶45

CWP No.2411 of 2018

¶46

5. In view of the above order passed in CWP No.2733 of 2017, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the instant petition. The same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. Pending miscellaneous

¶47

application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶48

Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 23, 2022 Judge Mukesh

Hp State Cooprative Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd. v. Sher Singh Singha (Deceased through LRs Champa Singha) and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hp State Cooprative Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd. v. Sher Singh Singha (Deceased through LRs Champa Singha) and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Vs Union of India

Satish Kumar Vs Hrtc and Another

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Hp

Rajesh Alias Raju Vs State of Hp

Vinod Kumar Mishra Vs Ncb

Dharam Pal Vs State of Hp