Back
2007(7) Supreme 359
Supreme Court of india
(From Allahabad High Court)
H.K. Sema & Altamas Kabir, JJ.
U.P. Co-op. Spg. Mills Federation Limited and another — Petitioner
versus
Ram Pratap Yadav & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 5279 of 2006
Decided on : 05-10-2007
(b)Service Law – Termination – In an enquiry held fairly and upon offering sufficient opportunity to the respondent to meet the charges brought against him – On consideration of the materials on record the Enquiry Officer held that some of the charges had been fully proved against the respondent and that some of the charges had been partly proved against him – No infirmity in order of the Disciplinary authority based on the enquiry report. (Para 16)
(c)Words and Phrases – Spinning Mill and Textile Mill – Basically spinning mills and textile mills are complementary to each other – Therefore, ‘spinning mills’ would also come under the description of ‘textile mills’ – Hence application of U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Rules in case of the respondent was proper. (Para 23)
Facts of the case:
Respondent No. 1 Shri Ram Pratap Yadav was appointed as Secretary/General Manager of the Mau-Aima Sarkari Katai Mills Limited at Mau-Aima in Allahabad on 24th January, 1990 by the U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited, which is the apex body of various Co-operative Spinning Mills in the State of Uttar Pradesh. During his tenure as such General Manager of the Mau-Aima Spinning Mill various complaints were received against him in regard to serious financial irregularities alleged to have been committed by him. A charge-sheet containing 15 charges was served on him, of which the Enquiry Officer found charges 1, 4, 11 and 14 to have been fully proved, while charges 3, 8, 9, 12 and 13 were held to have been partly proved. The other 6 remaining charges, were held not to have been proved. The enquiry report was thereafter placed before the Disciplinary Authority, which, while confirming the report of the Enquiry Officer, omitted charge No. 8 holding that the same had not been proved either fully or partly.
On the basis of his findings the Disciplinary Authority removed the respondent No. 1 from the service of the U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mill Federation Limited by his order dated 9th May, 1996. The order of his removal was challenged by the respondent No. 1 before the Appellate Authority after three years on 7th July, 1999. The said appeal filed by the respondent No.1 was ultimately dismissed on 11th July, 2000.
Respondent No. 1 had challenged his removal by way of a writ petition in 1996 and the same was disposed of with leave to make a representation before the concerned authority of the Federation. Subsequently, he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51699 of 2000 challenging the order dated 9th May, 1996 by which he was removed from the service of the Federation.
His service conditions were governed and regulated by the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, which came into effect in the State of U.P. upon publication in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 6th January, 1976. It was the petitioner’s case that Regulation 87 of the said Regulations made it incumbent for the concerned co-operative societies to impose major penalty only with prior concurrence of the U.P. Co-operative Institutions Service Board.
On the strength of the judgment and order of the High Court the respondent No. 1 was reinstated in service on 3rd December, 2005 and he is continuing to work with the Federation since his reinstatement.
Findings of the Court:
Not the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975, but U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Rules were applicable to respondent.
Result : Appeal allowed.
judgment
Altamas Kabir, J.
This appeal by way of special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th January, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51699 of 2000, whereby the order challenged in the writ petition was quashed and the writ petition was allowed.
2.As will appear from the materials on record, the respondent No. 1 herein, Shri Ram Pratap Yadav, was appointed as Secretary/General Manager of the Mau-Aima Sarkari Katai Mills Limited at Mau-Aima in Allahabad on 24th January, 1990 by the U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as Federation), which is the apex body of various Co-operative Spinning Mills in the State of Uttar Pradesh. During his tenure as such General Manager of the Mau-Aima Spinning Mill various complaints were received against him in regard to serious financial irregularities alleged to have been committed by him. A charge-sheet containing 15 charges was served on him, of which the Enquiry Officer found charges 1, 4, 11 and 14 to have been fully proved, while charges 3, 8, 9, 12 and 13 were held to have been partly proved. The other 6 remaining charges, were held not to have been proved. The enquiry report was thereafter placed before the Disciplinary Authority, which, while confirming the report of the Enquiry Officer, omitted charge No. 8 holding that the same had not been proved either fully or partly.
3.On the basis of his findings the Disciplinary Authority removed the respondent No. 1 from the service of the U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mill Federation Limited by his order dated 9th May, 1996. The order of his removal was challenged by the respondent No. 1 before the Appellate Authority after three years on 7th July, 1999. The said appeal filed by the respondent No.1 was ultimately dismissed on 11th July, 2000.
4.It may, however, be stated that the respondent No. 1 had challenged his removal by way of a writ petition in 1996 and the same was disposed of with leave to make a representation before the concerned authority of the Federation. Subsequently, he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51699 of 2000 challenging the order dated 9th May, 1996 by which he was removed from the service of the Federation.
5.The main contention of the respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner was set out in paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the writ petition which have been extracted in the judgment of the Allahabad High Court impugned in the instant proceedings and are also re-produced hereinbelow for the sake of reference :-
“14.That before dispending with the services of the petitioner no approval of the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board as envisaged by Regulation 87 read with Section 84 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975 has been obtained.
15.That the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board has been established by means of a notification dated 4.3.1972 under Section 122(1) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 conferring power upon the U.P. Co-operative Industrial Service Board with regard to employees of the categories of co-operative societies specified in the said notification.
16.That the aforesaid notification covers apex level societies. The apex level society are defined under Section 2(1-4) of the 1965 Act as including co-operative societies whose membership includes at least one other Central Co-operative Society, whose area of operation covers the whole of U.P. and whose primary object is to facilitate the operation of co-operative society affiliated to it. For convenience Section 2(a-4) of the 1965 Act is extracted below:
2(a-4) “Apex society”, “Apex level society” or “State level co-operative society” means
(1)U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. Lucknow;
(2)U.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lucknow;
(3)U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd., Lucknow;
(4)Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., Lucknow;
(5)U.P. Co-operative Union Ltd., Lucknow;
(6)U.P. Upbokta S
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
