By the Court.—The petitioner was a salesman, employed with the U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd., the first respondent and at the material time, he was assigned duties as a godown incharge. On 7 April 2006, an order of suspension was passed on the ground of alleged misconduct. A disciplinary proceeding was convened. The petitioner was held guilty of having committed an act of misconduct.

2. It is common ground that the allegation against the petitioner was that on an inspection of the godown, a shortage was detected in the stock of food grains. Upon the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary inquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 30 July 2007.

3. In writ proceedings (Writ Petition No. 489 (S/S) of 2007) before this Court, the order of dismissal was set aside on 9 May 2008 leaving it open to the disciplinary authority to take a decision afresh in accordance with law. Thereafter, by an order dated 2 July 2009, an order of dismissal was again passed. The petitioner was found guilty of having caused a loss to the extent of Rs. 43,77,078/- and hence was dismissed from service. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal in a writ petition which is pending before this Court (Writ Petition No. 4566 (S/S) of 2009).

4. On 6 April 2010, an order of recovery was issued against the petitioner by the General Manager of the first respondent by which, it was directed that in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, the Act, an amount of Rs. 43,54,557/- be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner challenged the order in a writ petition before this Court.

5. On 16 January 2014, the respondents agreed to withdraw the impugned recovery certificate with liberty to issue a fresh recovery certificate. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed reserving the right to the first respondent to pass a fresh order. Thereupon, a fresh order has been passed on 21 June 2014 by the Managing Director of the first respondent for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 43,54,557/- under the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Act.

6. The basis of challenge in the petition is that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the Act since, ex facie, Section 3 has no application. It is urged that since the legislation itself does not empower the first respondent to recover the amount of the alleged loss as arrears of land revenue, it is not open to the employer to do so in the guise of formulating Model Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the first respondent was acting within its powers in invoking the provisions of the Act. He has placed on record, a copy of the resolution passed by the Board of the first respondent on 29 September 2004 by which an approval was granted to the amended Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. It is urged that the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, as amended, specifically empower the first respondent to recover the amount of any loss caused, as arrears of land revenue under the Act.

8. Before we consider the nature of the challenge, it would be necessary to have due regard to the relevant provisions contained in the Act. Section 2 (a) defines the expression “Corporation” as follows:

“Corporation” means the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation established under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, and includes any other Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government and specified in a notification issued in that behalf by the State Government in the Official Gazette.”

9. Under a notification dated 30 July 1975 issued by the State Government under Section 2 (a), the first respondent has been notified to be a Corporation (vide Entry 22 of the notification). Section 3 (a) provides as follows:

“3. Recovery of certain dues as arrears of land revenue.—(1)