2017 Supreme(All) 58
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : P.K.S. BAGHEL, J.
BRIJ MOHAN ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42071 of 2016, decided on 16th January, 2017)
Counsel :
Shantanu Khare for the Petitioner; C.S.C. and Nripendra Mishra for the Respondents.
Headnote:U.P. Cooperative Employees Service Regulations, 1975—Regulation 85—Disciplinary proceedings—After retirement—Validity—Assistant Manager in U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh—No provision for initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement—On fact held, enquiry had lapsed and employee was entitled to get full retiral benefits. [Paras 14 and 24]
Result; Petition Allowed.
Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner is a retired Assistant Manager in U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited at Meerut. He reached his age of superannuation on 30.6.2016 thus retired. He has instituted this writ proceeding for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.6.2016 passed by the Food Corporation of India, U.P. Upbhokta Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Lucknow initiating disciplinary proceedings for causing financial loss to the respondents.
2. The essential facts of the case are; the petitioner was appointed as a Cashier at Meerut Branch of U.P. Upbhokta Sahkari Sangh Limited which is an apex level Cooperative Society governed under the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and Rules framed thereunder. His services are governed under the U.P. Cooperative Employees Service Regulations, 1975.
3. It is stated that the petitioner was granted promotion as Godown Keeper/Storekeeper on 3.2.1987. On 17.1.2000 he was promoted as Deputy Manager and he earned his further promotion on the post of Assistant Manager on 31.1.2014. His date of birth is 1.7.1956 thus his age of superannuation is 60 years. As mentioned above, he retired on 30.6.2016. He has been issued no dues certificate by each of the office where the petitioner had been posted during his service career.
4. On 22.6.2016 the Managing Director issued an order instituting disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the ground of financial misdemeanour and an enquiry officer was appointed with a direction to serve a charge-sheet upon the petitioner. The said order is stated to be served upon the petitioner subsequent to his retirement. It is stated that a perusal of the order dated 22.6.2016 goes to show that no charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and a direction has been issued to prepare departmental charge-sheet and served it upon the petitioner.
5. It is averred that by an order of the Deputy General Manager (Finance) dated 19.7.2016 the petitioner has been issued a cheque dated 29.6.2016 for an amount of Rs. 8,53,081/- towards the provident fund. It is stated that the services of the petitioner are not pensionable and in terms of the Regulations, 1975 the petitioner is entitled for provident fund and leave encashment. The amount of provident fund, as mentioned above, has already been disbursed to the petitioner. However, no payment of gratuity or leave encashment has been made to the petitioner and the said amount has been withheld on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner has been instituted.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that Rule-84 of the Regulations, 1975 enumerates the penalty which can be awarded to an employee. It is stated that there is no provision under the Regulations, under which the amount of gratuity or leave encashment can be withheld.
7. A counter-affidavit has been filed, wherein it is stated that the services of the petitioner are not regulated under the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 as it is a Multi-State Society hence the provisions of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 are applicable. It is stated that the enquiry officer has been appointed prior to petitioner’s retirement on 22.6.2016 and the enquiry officer is required to prepare a charge-sheet which has been served upon the petitioner through registered post on 15.9.2016. The total ten charges have been made by the enquiry officer against the petitioner. The charges are very serious in nature specially regarding financial irregularity.
8. In the rejoinder-affidavit the fact that the Regulations, 1975 are not applicable has been denied. It is stated that no Service Regulations have been framed under the provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 with regard to the Uttar Pradesh Upbhokta Sahakari Sangh and in view of the said fact the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 would continue