Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUDHIR AGARWAL, MANOJ MISRA, RAJENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
Pancham Ram Yadav - Appellant
Versus
U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. and Another - Respondent
Special Appeal No. 435 of 2008
Decided On : 02-09-2019
U.P. Co-operative Federation Limited Karmchari Seva Niyamawali Rules, 1980 – Rule 83 – U.P. Co-Operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 – Regulation 102 and 106 – U.P. Act, 1965 – Section 121, 122 and 122(1) – U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 – Rule 389-A – Two questions for adjudication by Division Bench of this Court Whether law laid down in case of Virendra Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others (Supra) in respect of true import of Regulation 84 r/w Rule 83 not state correct position of law as against reasoning given by Single Judge and alternatively whether statement of law in that regard as explained in the judgment of Satya Narain Mishra Vs. Praband Nideshak and another (Supra) should be accepted as correct position of law –Or services can be harmonized so as to uphold punishment by way of dismissal of an employee coupled with an order directing recovery of an amount on charge of financial embezzlement or misappropriation to included within fold of Regulation 84 – Held, Evident contradiction in language of Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 and Rule 83 of Rules, 1980, aforesaid provisions not harmonized – Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 prevail over Rule 83 of Rules, 1980 and only one of punishments prescribed can be imposed as specifically stated in Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 – Division Bench judgment in Virendra Kumar Gupta's case (supra) lays down correct law and otherwise view expressed by Single Judge in Satya Narain Mishra's case (supra) as also expressed in Reference order is not correct position of law – Matter remitted to Division Bench for deciding appeal on merits – Appeal ordered Accordingly. (Paras: 42 and 43)
Facts of the case:
Two questions for adjudication by Division Bench of this Court Whether law laid down in case of Virendra Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others (Supra) in respect of true import of Regulation 84 r/w Rule 83 not state correct position of law as against reasoning given by Single Judge and alternatively whether statement of law in that regard as explained in the judgment of Satya Narain Mishra Vs. Praband Nideshak and another (Supra) should be accepted as correct position of law –Or services can be harmonized so as to uphold punishment by way of dismissal of an employee coupled with an order directing recovery of an amount on charge of financial embezzlement or misappropriation to included within fold of Regulation 84.
Findings of the court:
Evident contradiction in language of Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 and Rule 83 of Rules, 1980, aforesaid provisions not harmonized – Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 prevail over Rule 83 of Rules, 1980 and only one of punishments prescribed can be imposed as specifically stated in Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 – Division Bench judgment in Virendra Kumar Gupta's case (supra) lays down correct law and otherwise view expressed by Single Judge in Satya Narain Mishra's case (supra) as also expressed in Reference order is not correct position of law.
Result: Matter remitted to Division Bench for deciding appeal on merits – Appeal ordered accordingly
JUDGMENT :
SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
1. This Full Bench has been referred two questions for adjudication by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.10.2017 noticing some inconsistencies in Regulation 84 of U.P. Co-Operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulation, 1975") and Rule 83 of U.P. Co-operative Federation Limited Karmchari Seva Niyamawali, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1980") and also expressing its disagreement with view taken by another Division Bench in Virendra Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others in Service Bench No. 614 of 2009, decided on 28.07.2015.
2. The questions referred for adjudication are as under:
2. Whether the law laid down in the case of Virendra Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others (Supra) in respect of the true import of Regulation 84 read with Rule 83 aforesaid does not state the correct position of law as against the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no.13 in the case of Satya Narain Mishra Vs. Praband Nideshak and another (Supra) and alternatively as to whether the statement of law in that regard as explained in the judgment of Satya Narain Mishra Vs. Praband Nideshak and another (Supra) should be accepted as the correct position of law ?"
(Emphasis added)
3. The facts giving rise to the present Reference may be stated as under.
4. That U.P. Co-operative Federation Limited (hereinafter to as 'PCF') is an Apex Level Co-operative Marketing Society, constituted and registered under the provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.P. Act, 1965'). Petitioner, Pancham Ram Yadav, was appointed as Storekeeper with the respondent-PCF on 09.03.1981. In 1988, he was working in a godown situated at Dandi, near Mama-Bhanja Talab in trans-yamuna area of Allahabad. In the night of 22/23 April, 1993, a theft was committed in the said godown in respect whereto a First Information Report was lodged at Police Station, Naini, Allahabad on 23.04.1993 registered as Case Crime No. 297 of 1993, under Sections 409, 457 and 380 I.P.C. It was reported that 361 bags of sugar were stolen. During investigation, police arrested one Suraj Bhan Singh and also recovered 101 sugar bags. One of the facts noticed during investigation was that the locks of godown were not broken and bags of sugar were stolen. Considering the matter, in detail, Managing Director, PCF, passed an order of suspension on 18.05.1993 placing petitioner under suspension and appointing one S.P. Singh, General Manager, Head Quarter, as Enquiry Officer. A charge-sheet dated 22.01.1994 was served upon petitioner levelling four charges. During inquiry, upon being transferred, Enquiry Officer was changed and one Prateek Sanjar, General Manager, PCF was appointed as Enquiry Officer by order dated 30.10.1994 who completed enquiry and submitted report holding charges proved against petitioner. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 29.05.1998 was issued to petitioner and ultimately punishment order dated 03.03.2000 was passed by Managing Director, PCF imposing punishment of dismissal from service with the approval of Institutional Service Board and also for recovery of Rs. 2,69,130.14. This punishment order dated 03.03.2000 was challenged by petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18891 of 2000. The ground on which punishment order was assailed before learned Single Judge is that two punishments could not have been awarded in view of Regulation 84 of Regulation, 1975 but learned Single Judge (Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J
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
