Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUBHASH CHANDRA GUPTA versus U.P. STATE CADRE AUTHORITY & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Subhash Chandra Gupta v. U.P. State Cadre Authority & Others - WRIT - A No. 21674 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 3998 (8 March 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar counsel for the petitinoer, Sri K.N. Misra, counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 28.3.2006 passed by District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. Moradabad/Chairmant District Committee, P.C.U. Moradabad- respondent no. 3 appended as Annexure 9 to the writ petition.

The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned suspension order dated 28.3.2006 passed by respondent no. 3 and for a writ of mandmus commanding the respondents to reinstate him in service and not to interfere in his peaceful working on the said post.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner's socieity was allotted 258 quintals of wheat which was distributed amongst the concerned institutions in accordance with the circular dated 9.1.2006 issued by the authority. On the basis of news published in ''Amar Ujala, regarding irregularities in distribution of the wheat stock.  Respondent no. 3 directed the Block Development Officer to submit his report which was submitted by him on 24.3.2006.  Thereafter, show cause notice dated 13.2.2006 was served upon the petitioner which was replied by him on 20.2.2006.

It further appears that the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 6.3.2006 directed the Block Development Officer to distribute stock available in the society at an early date. He again passed order dated 10.3.2006 directing the Block Development Officer to produce entire documents pertaining to distribution of stock.  As records were not submitted consequently respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order of suspension.

Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that from a bare perusal of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Committee, it is apparent that the petitioner was innocent.  

He has relied upon a decision rendered in Smt. Meera Tiwari V. Chief Miedical Officer and others-2001 AWC-1506 wherein question whether the order of suspension can be passed when no enquiry is contemplated in view of Rule 4(1) of the U.P. Government Servants' (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 was considered. On the basis of the afofesaid decision, it is contended that before placing a person under suspension, there has to be sufficient material before the competant authority as such, petitioner cannot be suspended without affording him any opportunity of hearing.

He then contended that under Regulation 67(3) of the U.P. Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976, the District Committee has to make recommendation for action against a delinquent employee within four months and if such recommendation is not made within the prescribed period, the matter shall stand transferred to the Regional Committee which is to finally decide the matter within two months. It is stated that in case, the Regional Committee fails to decide the same, then it is open for the State Level Administrative Committee to get the file transferred and pass appropriate orders itself. He urged that in the instant case, since the time prescribed under Regulation 67(3) of the aforesaid Business Regulations, 1976 has elapsed, it is now for the State Level Administrative Committee to get the file transferred to itself for passing appropriate orders.

Counel for the petitioner also relied upon paragraphs 3 and 5 of the enquiry report, which are as under

"3& ;kstuk ds [kk/kkUu 250-36 dqUVy dk forj.k dk;Znk;h laLFkk Hkwfe laj{k.k foHkkx ds Onkjk tkjh fd;s x;s dwiuksa ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 3-1-06 dks lEcfU/kr 62 etnwjksa dks dj fn;k x;k A bl [kk/kkUu forj.k dk lR;kiu lfefr ds lfpo Jh lqHkk"kpUnz xqIrk] Jh lqjsUnz flag] xzke fodkl vf/kdkjh ,oa Hkwfe laj{k.k foHkkx ds Jh jke flag dk;Z izHkkjh Onkjk fd;k x;k gS A lfefr ij yky dwiu Hkh miyC/k gSa ftudks xzke fodkl vf/kdkjh ,oa jke flag ds Onkjk izekf.kr fd;k x;k gS A bl izdkj ls [kk/kkUu forj.k esa LVkd dk lR;kiu ,oa forj.k dk lR;kiu ,oa dwiuksa dh miyC/krk rhuksa fcUnq iw.kZ ik;s x;s A tkWp ds nkSjku ;g Kkr gqvk gS fd Hkwfe laj{k.k foHkkx ds Onkjk ftu etnwjksa dks dk;Z esa iz;qDr fd;k x;k gS os fodkl [k.M ew<kik.Ms ds fuoklh ugha gSa ftlds dkj.k etnwjksa rd tkdj forj.k dk lR;kiu ugha gks ldk] fdUrq Hkwfe laj{k.k foHkkx Onkjk 10 etnwjksa ds gyQukesa tks fd uksVjh ls izekf.kr gSa ,oa 11 etnwjksa ds fyf[kr c;ku esjs le{k izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa ftUgksusa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mUgsa [kk/kkUu dk iw.kZ forj.k lgdkjh lfefr tSriqj fclkgV ew<k ik.Ms ls dj fn;k x;k gS A etnwjksa ds gyQukesa ,oa fyf[kr c;ku ewy #Ik esa tkWp vk[;k ds lkFk layXu gS A

4&&&&&&

5&   bl izdj.k ds lEcU/k esa lfefr tSriqj fclkgV ds rRdkyhu lfpo Jh lqHkk"kpUnz xqIrk dk Hkh c;ku fy;k x;k] ftUgksusa viusa c;ku esa fy[kk gS fd muds Onkjk vkSipkfjdrkvksa dks iw.kZ djrs gq, [kk/kkUu dk forj.k xzke fodkl vf/kdkjh dh mifLFkfr esa fd;k x;k gS vkSj fnukad 30-1-2006 dks ftyk lgk;d fucU/kd] lgdkjh lfefr;kW m0iz0 eqjknkckn tks fd lEcfU/kr lfefr ds fujh{k.k ij fks ds Onkjk Hkh fjdkMZ dk voyksdu fd;k x;k gS vkSj dksbZ folaxfr ugha ik;h xbZ A ;fn dksbZ folaxfr feyrh rks og fuf'pr #Ik ls ;g rF; [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh ew<kik.Ms ds laKku esa vo'; ykrs A bl laca/k esa lfefr ds rRdkyhu Jh lqHkk"kpUnz xqIrk lfpo ds ck;ku dh Nk;k izfr Hkh lkFk esa layXu gS A

mijksDr leLr fcUnqvksa ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWpk gwW fd [kk/kkUu forj.k lEcfU/kr etnwjksa dks fd;s tkusa esa izFke n`"V;k dksbZ /kkW/kyh izrhr ugha gksrh A etnwjksa dks [kk/kkUu forj.k fd;s tkusa ds lEcU/k esa Ik;kZIr izek.k gSa vkSj muds gyQukesa Hkh gSa fdUrq ;g js[kkafdr djuk vko';d gS fd bl izdj.k esa fofHkUu Lrjksa ij fu/kkZfjr izfdz;kvksa ds ikyu esa lfpo Jh lqHkk"kpUnz xqIrk ,oa xzke fodkl vf/kdkjh Jh lqjsUnz flag Onkjk leqfpr /;ku ugha fn;k x;k ftlds dkj.k ;g Hkzeiw.kZ fLFkfr mRiUu gqbZ A  esjs Lrj ls xzke fodkl vf/kdkjh dks ,d izfrdwy izfof"B iznku dj nh xbZ gS A bl laca/k esa [kk/kkUu ds gLrkarj.k esa izfdz;k tks fd Hkwfe laj{k.k foHkkx ds Onkjk dh xbZ' dh lwpuk [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh dks miyC/k ugha djkbZ ftlds dkj.k Hkh bl [kk/kkUu dk laKku esa ugha vk;k vkSj Hkze dh fLFkfr cuh jgh A vr% tkWp vk[;k ifj;kstuk funsZ'kd egksn; dh lsok esa fuEu lq>koksa ds lkFk izsf"kr gS %&

¼1½ [kk/kkUu forj.k gsrq lfefr;ksa dk vkoaVu dk;Znk;h laLFkk ds Onkjk lko/kkuh iwoZ fd;k tk; rkfd [kk/kkUu gLrkUrj.k fLFkfr mRiUu u gks A

¼2½ etnwj tgkW ds fuoklh gksa ogha ij fudVre nwjh ij fLFkfr lfefr dks [kk/kkUu miyC/k djk;k tk;s A

¼3½ [kk?kkUu gLrkarj.k@vkoaVu ,oa dk;kZnk;h laLFkk ds dk;ZizHkkjh ds izekf.kr gLrk{kj vkSj fuxZr fd;s x;s dwiuksa ds laca/k esa forj.k [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh dks vo'; miyC/k djk;sa tk;sa rkfd Hkfo"' esa bl izdkj dh dfBukbZ;ksa ls cpk tk lds A"

a

a

and urged that the petitioner is innocent.

Sri K.N. Misra, counsel for the respondents, per contra, contended that that the appointing authority of the petitioner is Regional Level Committee and its jurisdiction is not barred to decide the matter even after two months until and unless the matter is called upon by the State Level Administrative Committee. He further submits that the decision in Smt. Meera Tiwari (Supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstance of the instant case as in that case, Court was considering as to whether the order of suspension can be passed when no enquiry is contemplated in view of Rule 4(1) of the U.P. Government Servants' (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.In the instant case, the petitioner is not a Government servant and the provisions of U.P. Government Servants' (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 would not apply.

  Sri Mishra has submitted that reliance placed upon paragraphs 3 and 5 of the enquiry report is wholly misconceived as perusal of aforesaid paragraphs reveals that one of the officers has already been punished and that the petitioner claims to have distributed food grains to 62 labourers who did not belong to the village ''Murapande' where the society is situate. He then relied upon Annexure 1 to the writ petition which is copy of the stock register and urged that total weight of food grains was 258.57 quintals kept in 517 jute bags. Stock registere has not been verified by the concerned officers and in any case, he could not have weighed 517 bags and distributed the food grains in one day.  

In rebutal, counsel for the petitioner submits that as per statistics provided by the Food and Civil Supplies Department, the petitoner could weigh and distribute 700 bags on one day.

It is apparent from perusal of Annexure 1 to the writ petition that there is no proper endorsement in the stock register.  The petitioner is responsible for distribution of grains and for maintenance of stock register and is not supposed to accept gains in unhealthy deteriorated condition which is meant for consumption of poor labour class. It is also apparent from the perusal of aforesaid Annexure that distribution of food grains has been verified by the petitioner and not by any other responsible officer.  

It also appears that verification of the stock was made by the authority on 4.1.2006.  The distributing officers of the society are supposed to jointly put their signatures on the stock register which is not there from which it is  apparent that there is illegality in distribution of food grains by the petitioner.

It also appears from the perusal of the enquiry report that distribution made by the petitioner has been found to be doubtful. Hence, there was sufficient material for placing the petitioner under suspension.

Suspension is not punishment.  The petitioner has come up in the writ petition and therefore, the authorities have restrained their hands as the matter is sub-judice.

On the facts of the case, the writ petition is dismissed.  However, in the circumstances it is directed that the departmental proceedings may now be initiated and brought to its logical end by the Regional Leval Committee within a period of four months as the State Level Committee has not called upon the file.  No order as to costs.

Dated 8.3.2006

Kkb


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.