Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHOPAL SINGH MALIK versus U.P.FEDERAL AUTHORITY/U.P.CO

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhopal Singh Malik v. U.P.Federal Authority/U.P.Co-Op. Union Ltd. And Others - WRIT - A No. 75572 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1142 (27 April 2005)

 

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

                                                                                    Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 75572 of 2005

Bhopal Singh Malik

Versus

U.P. Federal Authority/ U.P. Cooperative

Union Ltd. and others.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner has been discharging his duty as Co-operative Supervisor. Services of the petitioner are governed by the Rules framed in exercise of power vested under Section 123 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1965 known as  U.P. Federal Authority (Business ) Regulation 1976. On account of various charges levelled against the petitioner , he has been sought to be placed under suspension vide order dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Chairman District Level Committee of U.P. Federal Authority (P.C.U.)/District Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies U.P. Muzaffarnagar. Questioning the validity of aforementioned suspension order, present writ petition has been filed.

Counter affidavit has been filed and therein it has been contended that decision, which has been taken for placing the petitioner under suspension is rightful decision and further authority, who has taken the decision , has full authority to place the petitioner under suspension and on account of misdeed  of the petitioner, order under Section 37 of the  U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, Act,1965 has also been passed.  Details has been set out that order passed by the  Chairman District Level Committee of U.P. Federal Authority (P.C.U.) / District Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies U.P. Muzaffarnagar has been considered by the  District Committee in the meeting dated 7.2.2006 and said committee has resolved to  initiate disciplinary proceedings and Additional District Cooperative Officer, Muzaffarnagar has been appointed as inquiry officer, as such no interference be made.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed therein statement of fact mentioned  in the counter affidavit has been disputed and that of writ petition has been reiterated.

After respective pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, it would be relevant to mention that at the point of time when the writ petition had been entertained, validity of suspension order had been looked into by this court. This Court on 14.12.2005 took a categorical view that there is no error in the suspension order dated 30.11.2005. Order Dated 14.12.2005 is being quoted below:-

Shri K.N. Mishra has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2.

Issue notice to respondents no. 3 and 4. Learned Standing counsel appears for respondent no.5.

The contention of petitioner's counsel is that although the Chairman of District Committee can exercise power of suspension but he has no authority to appoint Enquiry Officer till a decision is taken by the District Committee or appointing authority to initiate the enquiry.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a judgment of this court reported in 1998 (1) AWC 125 Ram Chandra Pandey Versus District Administrative Committee. The counsel for the respondents submits that Chairman can exercise all the power of the District Committee in view of Regulation 10(4) VI of the Regulation read with Regulation 67 of Co-operative Federation Authority Business Regulation 1976. He has also placed reliance on a judgment of this court reported in 1987  UPLBEC 1394 Luxmi Narain Verma Versus State of U.P., District Assistant Registrar.

Considering the submission of counsel for the parties and the facts of the present case, it is clear that the power of suspension can be well be exercised by Chairman of District Committee and there is no error in the suspension order dated 30.11.2005. However, it is provided that till the District Committee or the appointing authority decides to proceed with disciplinary enquiry, the enquiry officer appointed by the Chairman District Committee may not proceed with the enquiry.

The respondents may file a counter affidavit within one month. Rejoinder affidavit be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List thereafter for admission."

Consequently, validity of the suspension order is not at all been looked into as same has attained finality.

Sri M.P. Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence  that as per  U.P. Federal Authority (Business ) Regulation 1976 as period of four months has passed from the date of passing of suspension order,  and disciplinary action has not  been concluded by the District Level Committee and  as such decision now has  to be taken by the Regional Committee as such directive  be issued to Regional Committee for taking final  decision in the matter.

Sri K.N. Misra, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that valid resolution has been passed by the District Level Committee and consequential order has been passed and as such action has to be taken by the District Level Committee.

In order to appreciate respective arguments which have been advanced , Regulation 67  of U.P. Federal Authority (Business ) Regulation 1976,  is being looked into and quoted below:-

67& fuyEcu %

1& fdlh deZpkjho`Un ds lnL; dks ftlds fo:) tWkp djus dk fopkj gks ;k tWkp dk;Zokgh dh tk jgh gks] fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh ;k tuinh; desVh ds foosdkuqlkj tkap lekIr gksus rd fuyfEcr fd;k tk ldrk gS %

fdUrq izfrcU/k ;g gS fd tuinh; desVh dk v/;{k xEHkhj foRh; ,oa vuq'kklukRed vkjksi gksus dh n'kk esa fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh] v/;{k] {ks=h; desVh dh Lohd`fr dh izR;k'kk esa fuyfEcr dj ldrk gS] ftlds fy;s fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dks fuyEcu ds 30 fnu ds Hkhrj lHkh rF; ,oa lk{; izLrqr djuk gksxk A ,slk u djus ij fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh mDr fuyEcu vkns'k dks mPp izkf/kdkjh }kjk dh tkus okyh fdlh vxzsrj dk;Zokgh ij dksbZ izfrdwy izHkko Mkys fcuk fu"izHkkoh ?kksf"kr dj ldrk gS A

"fuyEcu dh lEiw.kZ vof/k esa deZpkjho`Un dks mlds ewy osru tks og fuyEcu ds Bhd iwoZ ik jgk Fkk] dk 1@4 Hkkx thou fuoZkg HkRrk rFkk ml ij eagxkbZ HkRrk rFkk vfrfjDr eagxkbZ HkRrk mUgha njksa ij ns; gksxk tSlok fd fuyEcu djus okys vf/kdkjh fyf[kr vkns'k }kjk fufnZ"V djsa] fdUrq eagxkbZ HkRrk rFkk vfrfjDr eagxkbZ HkRrs dh nj mu njksa ls vf/kd ugha gksxh] tks fuoZkg HkRrs ij le;≤ ij vuqeU; gks A"

jkT; Lrjh; izkf/kdkjh desVh dh cSBd fnukad 13&3&78 }kjk ikfjr la'kks/ku

"izfrcU/k ;g Hkh gS fd tuinh; desVh fuyfEcr lgdkjh i;Zos{kdksa ds ekeys esa vfUre :i ls viuh laLrqfr {ks=h; desVh dks fuyEcu vof/k dh frfFk ls 4 ekg ds vUnj vo'; Hkst nsxh A ;fn tuinh; desVh ,slk djus esa pwd djs rks ,sls ekeys {ks=h; desVh dks Lor% 4 ekg dh vof/k lekIr gksus ij gLrkUrfjr ekus tk;saxs vkSj {ks=h; desVh dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd os vius Lrj ls ,sls ekeyksa esa 2 ekg ds vUnj vfUre :i ls fu.kZ; ys ysa A ;fn fdlh ekeys esa mDrkuqlkj 6 ekg ds vUnj fu.kZ; ugha gksrk vkSj foyEc fd;k tkrk gS rks jkT; Lrjh; iz'kklfud desVh dks vf/kdkj gksxk fd og ,sls ekeyksa dks vius Lrj ij LFkkukUrfjr djus dk fu.kZ; ys ysa A

izfrcU/k ;g Hkh gS fd ;fn ,sls fdlh ekeys esa iz'kklfud desVh }kjk lh/ks fu.kZ; fy;k tk; rks ml ekeys esa vihy dh lquokbZ dk vf/kdkj izkf/kdkjh dh jkT; Lrjh; desVh dks gksxk A"

(jkT; Lrjh; izkf/kdkjh desVh dh cSBd fnukad 10&9&79 }kjk ikfjr la'kks/ku)

Bare perusal of aforementioned Regulation would  go to show  that  any incumbent  against whom inquiry is contemplated or is pending, he can be placed under suspension, till conclusion of the inquiry on the wisdom of either  by the appointing authority  or by District Committee.  A proviso has been added  to the aforementioned Regulation authorizing the Chairman of the District Level Committee  to exercise power of suspension where charges  against incumbent are of serious financial lapses and misconduct in anticipation of approval by the Appointing Authority ( Chairman) of the Regional Committee and once this power is exercised then entire papers are to be transmitted within next 30 days to the appointing authority. In the event of non transmission of the papers, the appointing authority is authorized to annul  the aforementioned suspension order without effecting on going disciplinary proceeding.  Criteria for payment subsistence allowance has also been provided for.  Second provisio  has also been added to the Regulation wherein it has been  provided for that in the matter of suspended Cooperative Supervisor, District Level Committee has to make  its recommendation to the Regional Committee within four months from the date of suspension.  In the event of failure of District Level Committee to send such report, proceeding would automatically be transferred to Regional Committee and Regional Committee  would be empowered to deal with such matter and take final decision within two months. It has also been further provided for that if proceedings are not finalized within six months as provided for, then   State Level Committee is empowered to call for the entire record and take decision itself. Thus  scheme  provided for under Regulation is clear cut and categorical .

Now on the touchstone of the Regulation quoted above, the claim of the petitioner is being adverted to.  Petitioner has been placed under suspension on 30.11.2005. The power of suspension has been exercised by the Chairman of District Level Committee under Regulation 10 (4) VI  of Regulation read with Regulation 67, and same has been  ratified by the District Level Committee on 7.2.2006 and Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies Chairman of District Level Committee has also appointed inquiry officer thereafter.

The fact of the matter is that w.e.f. 30.11.2005 till expiry of the period of four months, disciplinary proceedings have not been concluded at the level of District Level Committee and once said proceedings have not been concluded within the stipulated period of four months by the District Level Committee, then in that event District Level Committee ceases to have authority to proceed with the matter and matter has to be automatically transferred to Regional Committee. Period of four months expired on 30.3.2006 and by the said date disciplinary proceedings have not been concluded by the District Level Committee, thus in term of second proviso of Regulation 67  entire proceedings are to be transferred to the Regional Committee.

Consequently, in the fact of the present case as per second proviso of Regulation 67, District Level Committee has no authority to proceed and entire papers are to be transferred to the Regional Committee. Consequently, District Level Committee is directed to transmit entire papers to Regional Level Committee forthwith and thereafter Regional Level Committee shall proceed strictly in consonance with the provision as contained  under the provision of Regulation 67 and conclude the proceeding. In the event of failure on the part of Regional Level Committee to conclude proceeding, the  consequence as mentioned in the Second proviso  automatically shall follow.

Subject to observation mentioned above, present writ petition is disposed of.

Dt. 27.4.2006

T.S.


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.