SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(All) 248

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Kishan Chand, Ramdev Suspended Cadre Secretary Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti
Versus
State of U.P.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 4142 of 2006
Decided On : 25 January 2006
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 4142 Of 2006

Advocates:
H.R.Mishra, K.B.SRIVASTAV, M.P.GUPTA, MANOJ MISHRA,

Non-compliance with statutory rules and regulations governing suspension orders can vitiate the legality of the order.

Headnote:

Suspension - Service Regulations - U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 - Rule 14 (v), Rule 59 (2) (g)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Cadre Secretary, was suspended by the District Administrative Committee and Secretary/General Manager, District Co-operative Bank Ltd. The petitioner challenged the suspension order, claiming it to be illegal and without jurisdiction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the suspension order was passed without the prior concurrence of the District Assistant Registrar as required by Rule 14 (v). The court directed the authority to decide the petitioner's representation within six weeks.

Issues: The legality and jurisdiction of the suspension order, non-compliance with Service Regulations and Rules framed under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, and the delay in deciding the petitioner's representation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension order was vitiated due to non-compliance with Rule 14 (v) and directed the authority to decide the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with a direction to the authority to decide the petitioner's representation within six weeks.

RAKESH TIWARI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner was appointed as Cadre secretary by direct recruitment on 15. 2. 1977. While working as Cadre Secretary in Kisan Seva sahkari Samiti Ltd. the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 28. 12. 2005 by respondent No. 3, Member Secretary, District Administrative Committee and Secretary/general manager, District Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Muzaffarnagar. This petition has been filed with the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and to quash the suspension order dated 28. 12. 2005 passed by respondent No. 3 contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as Secretary in pursuance of the aforesaid suspension order dated 28. 12. 2005.

(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Court may deem fit and consider proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

( 2 ) THE contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the order of suspension is illegal and without jurisdiction being contrary to the Service Regulations and the Rules framed under the u. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. It is submitted that the impugned order of suspension is vitiated having been passed on the dictates of the District Assistant Registrar who is no more member/secretary of the society by virtue of the 12th amendment to the Service Rules, 2004. It is next submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of suspension has been passed without application of mind to the relevant records and also without appreciating the contents of letter dated 23. 12. 2005 sent by the Branch Manager, Muzaffarnagar, District co-operative Bank having its branch at Mansoorpur to the Member Secretary, District administrative Committee and Secretary/general Manager, District Cooperative Bank Ltd. , muzaffarngar, respondent No. 3. The counsel for the petitioner also submits that the letter dated 23. 12. 2005 also falsify the allegation of the shortage of stock of the fertilizers in the Samiti to the tune of Rs. 6,66,064/- and other financial irregularities claimed to be found by the Inspecting officers which was the sole basis of order dated 28. 12. 2005.

( 3 ) IT is urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation on 4. 1. 2006 for recalling the suspension order dated 28. 12. 2005 annexing all relevant documents in support of his case and pleading his innocence but no action has been taken by the respondents on his representation even though it is amply clear from his representation as well as letter dated 23. 12. 2005 aforesaid that no financial irregularity has ever been committed by the petitioner. Copy of the letter dated 23. 12. 2005;copy of the bank receipt along with loan recovery and the copy of the, representation of the petitioner dated 4. 1. 2006 have also been appended as Annexure nos. 2 to 4 to the writ petition.

( 4 ) SRI H. R. Mishra, counsel for the respondents submits that Member/secretary had jurisdiction under Rule 14 (v) of the U. P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralized service Rules, 1976 to suspend a member of the Centralized Service with the prior concurrence of Assistant Registrar Rule 14 (v) is as under: 14. Powers and duties of the Member Secretary of the District Committee: -Subject to the control and supervision of the Chairman of the District Committee the Member Secretary of the district Committee shall (i ). . . (ii ). . . (iii ). . . (iv ). . . (v) have power of suspending a member of the Centralized Service with the prior concurrence of. Assistant Registrar.

( 5 ) PERUSAL of the aforesaid rule quoted above shows that the Member/secretary has power to suspend a member of the Centralize service after obtainin







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top