Allahabad High Court
C/M Etawah District Cooperative ... vs Vijay Singh Yadav And Another on 24 April, 2023
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Manjive Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 250 of 2023
Appellant :- C/M Etawah District Cooperative Bank Limited
Respondent :- Vijay Singh Yadav And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Brijesh Kumar Verma,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- Sujeet Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
Heard Shri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Brijesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sujeet Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.
Present intra court appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.5.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.384 of 2019 (Vijay Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.). The operative portion of the judgment is quoted as under:-
"..............Upon bare reading of the amendments as have come to be enforced, I find that Clause-1 of the amending rules clearly stipulates that these rules would come into force w.e.f. from the date of its publication in the Gazette and all these amending rules have been published in the Gazette on 27th August 2018 that is much after retirement of the petitioner from the establishment-bank, inasmuch as, counsel for the respondent could not point out any permission accorded by the Registrar to initiate disciplinary proceeding or to continue any disciplinary proceeding after retirement of the petitioner pursuant to the amending provisions.
Besides that, the Court is also of the view that institution of disciplinary proceeding is with the issuance of a charge sheet. Since, in this case, it is admitted position that at no point of time any charge sheet was issued to the petitioner so it cannot be said that any disciplinary proceeding as such was instituted or as a consequence thereof, any disciplinary inquiry as such was held. In the absence of any disciplinary inquiry or formal inquiry being held against a retired employee, the penalty of recovery for an amount to make good the loss to the bank, as a consequence of charge levelled against the retired employee, cannot be approved of.
It is also an admitted position that the order of the Single Judge in Narendra Singh Yadav case has not been appealed and the dues have come to be paid to that petitioner. Accordingly, since by the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Singh Yadav (supra) of the same bank who was charged with the same offence, writ petition was allowed with consequential benefits along with interest upon the same, this petition also stands allowed in terms of the relief granted therein.
The order dated 05.12.2018 impugned herein in this petition is, therefore, quashed.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, petition stands allowed."
The writ petition in question has been preferred against the order impugned dated 5.12.2018, whereby the claim of the petitioner (respondent herein) of gratuity, leave encashment and other post retirement dues including the revision of pay as per 6th Pay Commission and also paying increment on a post for having worked for more than 10 years has come to be denied on the ground that the petitioner, while working in the branch on the post of Branch Manager, had committed financial irregularity by permitting / issuing over draft to some account holders, which resulted in huge financial loss to the bank. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner before learned Single Judge in the said proceeding while assailing the order impugned was that the petitioner had already retired from the establishment on 31.10.2016. While he was in service, no chargesheet was served upon him. Therefore, the subsequent disciplinary proceeding could not sustain as the bank did not have any special rules or regulations to meet out said exigency and in bereft of any rules/ regulations, the subsequent disciplinary proceeding could not be drawn.The petitioner had also placed reliance on the case of similarly situate person namely Narendra Singh Yadav, who was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier along with the petitioner in the same branch. Narendra Singh Yadav had also been charged with the same offence and had been held liable for the loss caused to the bank of the same amount for which the liability has been fastened upon the petitioner. Narendra Singh Yadav had also preferred Writ-A No.17745 of 2018 (Narendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors.) against similar order, which was allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 8.10.2018, the operative portion of which is quoted as under:-
"..........In light of facts discussed herein above as well as law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, the impugned order dated 27.8.2018 passed by respondent no. 3 (Secretary and Chief Executive Officer District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Etawah) is bad in law and hereby quashed . Respondent no. 3 is directed to release the gratuity amount of Rs. 6,55,608/-, leave encashment of 90 days and arrears of salary of two increments from 1.1.2012 to 1.1.2013 and 1.1.2013 to 1.1.2014 along with 6% interest from the date it was due in favour of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed.
No order as to costs."
The writ Court in Narendra Singh Yadav's case, while allowing the writ petition, has also placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in R.B. Agnihotri v. State of U.P., 2000 Law Suit (All) 186 and Bhagirathi Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2018 (8) ADJ 538. Admittedly the order dated 8.10.2018 had not been assailed by the respondents (appellants herein) in appeal and as such for all practical purposes the said order had attained finality. The dues of Narendra Singh Yadav along with interest has also been paid to him.
In this backdrop, learned Single Judge relying on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Singh Yadav (supra) had also allowed the writ petition in question in the same terms.
We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment and order impugned passed by learned Single Judge.
The special appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 24.4.2023
SP/
