[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Vidyut Transmission Karmchari ... vs Shri Ravindra Nath Mishra And 2 Others on 4 December, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:80403
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6912 of 2025
Vidyut Transmission Karmchari Vetanbhogi Rin Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Thru. Secy.
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Shri Ravindra Nath Mishra And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Avinash Tripathi, Kaushalendra K. Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Anjani Nath Khare
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Shri Avinash Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Khare, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State as well as Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava & Shri Akshat Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, whose joint vakalatnama filed today is taken on record.
2. By means of the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of judgment and order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the Cooperative Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow in Appeal No.60 of 2023 which was decided by the aforesaid judgment along with numerous other appeals.
3. The petitioner had filed a Review Application No.6 of 2024 for review of the judgment passed in appeal and the review application has been dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 15.10.2025. Validity of the order dated 15.10.2025 has also been assailed before this Court.
4. An inquiry under Section 68(1) of the UP Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1965") had been instituted against the numerous persons. A copy of the inquiry report dated 12.01.2023 has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to this petition which shows that the inquiry was conducted for the allegations that the management of the society had committed forgery and tampering in the account books and records, given service extension to the employees arbitrarily thereby causing financial loss to the society, for this reason, a three members' inquiry committee was instituted to hold an inquiry under Section 68(1) of the Act, 1965. The only allegation against the respondent no.1 was that advances were given to the employee, namely, Santram from period of 2010 to 2016-17 exceeding his entitlement/capacity to repay loan keeping in view his salary. This charge is related to the period of 2010 to 2016-17 whereas, the respondent no.1 had taken charge of the post of Assistant Secretary of the Society on 07.11.2017. Therefore, he cannot be penalized for sanction of loan to an employee prior to his appointment and joining in the society.
5. It is recorded in the appellate order that while advancing his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner-society had admitted that there was no evidence in support of charge no.5 and further inquiry was required regarding the said charge. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the conclusions drawn in the inquiry report regarding this charge are not sustainable.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although, the loans had been sanctioned prior to the appointment and joining of the respondent no.1, the amounts had been disbursed after the respondent no.1 had joined the post.
7. Regarding this submission, suffice it to say that the charge was not regarding disbursal of amount but the same was regarding sanction of loan. When no charge had been leveled alleging wrongful disbursal of amount, no action can be taken against the respondent no.1 regarding the same.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that the petitioner has been found to be guilty in respect of charge no.6. This charge was not leveled against the petitioner and it was leveled against other persons. The inquiry report states that Shri Narayan Prasad Khare, Secretary of the Society had sanctioned loans to 10 persons exceeding their entitlement and repayment capacity and the respondent no.1, who was the Assistant Secretary and the then Managing Committee were also responsible for this misconduct.
9. When the charge specifically states that the amount had been sanctioned by Shri Narayan Prasad Khare, Secretary of the Society, merely because the petitioner was the Assistant Secretary, penal liability cannot be passed on to him. The Tribunal has held that this charge was not directed against the respondent no.1 and it was against the remaining 11 persons whose appeals were decided along with the appeal of the respondent no.1.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to take this Court to the entire record to make out some factual errors committed by the Tribunal.
11. The scope of interference by this Court while exercising its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. In Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to the judgment in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 has held in the following words:
"24. Proceedings under Article 226 are in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court while proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution are not original but only supervisory. Article 227 substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915 excepting that the power of superintendence has been extended by this article to tribunals as well. Though the power is akin to that of an ordinary court of appeal, yet the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction."
(Emphasis added)
12. When the Tribunal has taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the relevant material brought on record and the submissions advanced during which the learned counsel for the petitioner had himself admitted that there was no evidence in support of charge no.5 and charge no.6 was not directed against the respondent no.1, and, accordingly, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal, there appears to be no perversity in the impugned judgment and order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the Tribunal.
13. Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed at the admission stage.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
December 4, 2025
V. Sinha
