Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 25 March, 2021
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1059 of 2021
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan Misra,Sr. Advocate Sri H.R Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Lal
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri H.R. Misra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Krishna Mohan Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents. Shri Ashok Kumar Lal appears for respondent no.3.
The petitioner, who is Ex-Cadre Secretary, Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Khushalabad, Vikas Khand Dibai, Bulandshahar is aggrieved by the order impugned dated 16.12.2020 passed by fourth respondent, whereby he has been placed under suspension. The main plank of argument as has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that charges so levelled against the petitioner are not of such nature, which would warrant major penalty. The order impugned is also contrary to Regulations 59 (f) (i) of Uttar Pradesh Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies Centralized Service Regulation, 1978, which deals with the suspension. He submits that suspension has been passed in most arbitrary manner ignoring the mandate of Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Chandra Pandey v. District Administrative Committee & Ors., (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1747. He has placed reliance on question no.(iii), which has been formulated by the Full Bench, which is as under:-
"(iii) when a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under police investigation for which he has been arrested or he is underoging trial in a court of law for an offence under the Indian Penal code, U.P. Cooperative Societies Act or any other Act or charges have been proved against him by a Criminal Court."
Reliance has also been placed on para 14 of the Full Bench judgment as under:-
"According to Regulation 59 (1) (a), the disciplinary proceeding against a member is to be conducted by an Inquiry Officer appointed in clause (d). As per Regulation 59 (1) (c), disciplinary proceeding can be taken by the District Committee only. Till the disciplinary proceeding has been taken by the District Committee, the question of conducting such proceeding by an Inquiry Officer does not arise. Although the Member/Secretary has been given power under Regulation 59 (1) (d) to appoint an Inquiry Officer ; but he can do so only after the disciplinary proceeding has been taken by the District Committee. He, therefore, cannot appoint an Inquiry Officer in the absence of initiation of disciplinary proceeding by the District Committee."
On the basis of supplementary affidavit a categorical stand has been taken in para 3 that by the impugned order the Member Secretary while suspending the petitioner has also appointed the Inquiry Officer without any decision of the District Administrative Committee to initiate the disciplinary proceeding, hence the impugned order is vitiated on this ground alone.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 3.2.2021 passed in Narendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ-A No.12943 of 2020. He submits that so far as discrepancy, which has been highlighted by Shri H.R. Misra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not warrant interference in the present impugned suspension order on the pretext that the same has been ratified subsequently by the District Committee. He has also placed reliance on the resolution of the District Administrative Committee dated 12.2.2021, whereby impugned suspension order has been ratified and as such it is submitted that no interference is required in the matter.
Confronted with this, Shri H.R. Misra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the discrepancy has been highlighted by the petitioner while filing the supplementary affidavit sworn on 5.2.2021 and the said discrepancy has been ratified by the District Administrative Committee on 12.2.2021, whereas the petitioner has been placed under suspension by the order impugned dated 16.12.2020. As such he submits that as per the mandate of Full Bench in Ram Chandra Pandey (Supra), the said impugned order cannot sustain.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and is of the considered opinion that so far as charges are concerned, definitely the same are not of such nature, whereby major penalty can be inflicted upon the petitioner. The charges are also required proper enquiry. It has been informed that the chargesheet is under preparation and the same would be served upon the petitioner within three days. It is provided that the petitioner shall extend full cooperation in the ongoing enquiry in the matter and the same would be concluded within one month. For a period of one month or till the conclusion of enquiry, whichever is earlier, the operation of the order impugned shall be kept in abeyance.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 25.3.2021
SP/
