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

2004 Supreme(All) 1496

2004 (5) AWC 5133
(ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)
M. Katju and Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, JJ.
C.M.W.P. Nos. 12713 of 1998 and 2499, 1245 of 1995
Decided on August 24, 2004
Deoki Nandan Parasar
Versus
Chairman District Administrative Committee Cadre Authority Co-operative Bank Centralised Services and others

Advocates:
Counsel for the Petitioner: U. N. Sharma, K. Ajit, Sudhir Kumar and P. C. Jain.
Counsel for the Respondents: H. P. Singh and M. S. Negi.

Headnote:

Transfer - Co-operative Bank Centralized Services Rules, 1976 - Rule 9 (ii) - U.P. Co-operative Service Regulation, 1975 - [Rule 9 (ii) (a), Rule 3, Rule 4 (c)]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an employee of the Co-operative Bank, was involved in a series of disputes and legal battles regarding his appointments, transfers, and dismissals. The current case involved three connected writ petitions, including challenges to dismissal, transfer, and absorption in the centralized services.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's objections to his absorption in the centralized services and his transfer were ill-founded. The court held that the petitioner's objections regarding the date of absorption, nomenclature of his position, and the constitution of the cadre authority were without merit. The court also dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the dismissal order, finding that the petitioner's behavior constituted insubordination and disobedience of transfer orders.

Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's objections to his absorption in the centralized services, the legality of his transfer, and the dismissal order based on non-compliance with the transfer order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner's objections to his absorption and transfer were unfounded, and his behavior constituted insubordination and disobedience of transfer orders, justifying the dismissal.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the absorption, transfer, and dismissal, finding the petitioner's objections to be without merit and justifying the dismissal based on insubordination and disobedience of transfer orders.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hem Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. There are three connected writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 12713 of 1998 has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.3.1998 (received on 21.3.1998) issued by Member Secretary Cadre Authority, Co-operative Bank Centralized Services dismissing the petitioner from service as Senior Manager, District Co-operative Bank and to quash the entire disciplinary proceedings beginning from the order of suspension dated 2.1.1997 and also the charge-sheet dated 6.1.1997. The second relief claimed in the writ petition is for reinstatement of the petitioner as ‘Officer on Special Duty’ District Co-operative Bank, Agra, with full back wages with interest at bank rates and all other benefits.

3. In Writ Petition No. 2499 of 1995, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.9.1994, communicated by Member Secretary, Cadre Authority Co-operative Bank Centralized Service vide letter dated 10.10.1994, whereby the petitioner was absorbed in the Centralized Services and Writ Petition No. 1245 of 1995 has been preferred for quashing the order of transfer dated 1.11.1994 and the consequent relieving order dated 10.11.1994 (Annexures-12 and 13 to the said writ petition). All the three writ petitions are related to each other and are being decided by a common judgment. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties in all the three writ petitions.

4. The Co-operative Bank Centralized Services Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) was framed in exercise of powers under Section 122 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Initially only the post of Secretary of the Bank was included within the purview of the Rules but after an amendment in the Rules vide notification dated 12th September, 1983, four additional posts of Chief Accountant, Manager, Executive Officer and Development Officer were also included.

5. The facts giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner was appointed on 14.5.1963 as Office Assistant in Agra District Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred as the ‘Bank’) and he was confirmed on the said post on 14.5.1964. On 16.10.1964, the petitioner was promoted as Executive Officer and was confirmed after completion of one-year probation on 16.10.1965. On 25.8.1966, the petitioner’s service was terminated by resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was allowed on 3.9.1966 by the Registrar. Co-operative Societies U.P. Subsequently the order dated 3.9.1966 was recalled by the Successor Registrar on 17.10.1967, which was challenged in a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed in limine on 24.10.1967. The petitioner filed special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was allowed on 23.8.1972 holding that the order dated 17.10.1967, withdrawing the earlier order is void and respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and all the benefits accrued to him during the aforesaid period. In pursuance to the order dated 23.8.1972, the petitioner was allowed to join only on 10.10.1975, despite the fact he had submitted his joining report on 25.8.1972. However, the petitioner was given all his arrears of salary after he was permitted to join.

6. The service of the petitioner was once again terminated by the Administrator/District Magistrate on 10.10.1977 at the behest of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies without any enquiry. The petitioner once again challenged the order of termination dated 10.10.1977 in Writ Petition No. 1992 of 1977 which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 2.9.1985. The Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. During the intervening period when the petitioner was out of job consequent to the order of termination dated 10.10.1977, the petitioner was transferred to Di

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top