IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings against Seasonal Clerks must conclude within prescribed timelines; failure renders them void, especially post-retirement.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Shri Girish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Petitioner Surendra Nath Pandey, worked as a Seasonal Clerk with the 4th respondent continuously ever since his initial appointment made in the year 1990 until he attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2009.

3. In the present petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority, namely, the Secretary of District Cane Services Authority, Kushinagar dated 31.01.2015 whereunder he has been held guilty of loss to the society for his alleged misconduct, embezzlement and resistant and further not to count the period he has been under suspension towards his post retirement dues. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order passed by the Regional Cane Services Authority/ Deputy Cane Commissioner, Deoria.

4. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner being a Seasonal employee of the society and having continuously worked as Seasonal Clerk is entitled to post retirement dues admissible to such employees under the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Services Regulation, 1975. He has placed reliance upon the relevant Regulations 27 and 28 of the Service Regulations in support of his argument that if the disciplinary proceedings drawn in respect of Seasonal Clerks are not concluded in the same season, then such proceedings would be taken to have been dropped. He argues that once the proceedings are deemed to be dropped under the relevant Regulations, the respondent could not have reopened the issue after five years of his retirement.

5. Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner was placed under suspension on 09.10.1999 on the basis of a report of the Police Superintendent, Kushinagar dated 13.10.1997 asking him to furnish explanations regarding certain charges of utilizing the property of the society for personal benefits. It transpires that the petitioner failed to submit any reply and so the proceedings drawn remained pending. Petitioner was subsequently reinstated revoking the suspension order on 15.02.2001 holding that the disciplinary proceedings will not be adversely affected and will continue. It transpires that some report was submitted upon which the resolution was adopted by the society inflicting punishment and so the consequential order came to be passed by the Secretary of the District Cane Services Authority, Kushinagar on 31.01.2015. Petitioner's appeal was dismissed on merits on the ground that petitioner was found guilty in the enquiry report submitted by specially constituted committee.

6. Countering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ravindra Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4 submits that the order dated 15.02.2001 to reinstate the petitioner itself provided that disciplinary proceeding, already going on, will not get adversely affected and he submits that the charges were serious and it was not once but the previous conduct of the petitioner also showed that even in the past he was suspended and faced charges. It is argued by Mr. Ravindra Singh, that the society was fully justified in adopting resolution on the basis of report submitted by the Enquiry Committee dated 27.01.2001, however, Shri Singh could not offer any explanation as to what transpired for the society in taking action after delay of 13 years from the date of presentation of enquiry report.

7. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and having perused the records, I find it to be an admitted position on the part of the respondent that petitioner after was placed under suspension in the year 1999, disciplinary proceedings instituted was not concluded either in the year 1999 or in the subsequent year 2000. It has though come on record that some enquiry report was submitted on 27.01.2001 but what exactly was the report is not discussed in the order i