# Anurag Kumar and others v. The State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 352 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-03-19 - **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 2358 of 2013 - **Bench:** Abdul Mateen - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anurag-kumar-and-others-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-42512 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote H.G.S. Parihar C.S.C. U.P. Cooperative Employee Services Regulation 1975-Regulation 84- Minor punishment-stoppage of annual increment for remaining period of Services-without supplying the copy of enquiry report without indicating date, place and time for enquiry-for minor penalty full fledge enquiry not neededbut when reply to show cause notice not taken in consideration-rather decided to hold formal enquiry-without following proper procedure-order impugned not sustainable.-quashed. Held: Para-19 In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, keeping in view the fact that the very basis of passing of the impugned order of punishment is the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, a copy of which was never provided to the petitioner, the Court comes to the irresistible conclusion that the procedure followed by the opposite parties before passing the impugned order of punishment is absolutely unlawful and against the settled norms and procedure and also against the Regulation 85 of the Regulations 1975. ## Text 352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 14. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors., [2008 (12) SCC 481], the Apex Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that person approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and Ors. v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Ors.: (2009) 3 SCC 141. 15. From what we have mentioned above, it is clear that the petitioner has filed this writ petition with oblique motives and has not presented the correct facts just to gain undue advantage. Such type of act should always be discouraged and is highly deprecated. This is the case, where we thought to impose heavy cost so as to deter in indulging such activities again. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the recovery notice under challenge or entertain the petitioner's prayer for setting aside the impugned recovery citation. 16. The writ petition is dismissed with cost, which shall be quantified as Rs.2,50,000/-. The petitioners are directed to deposit the said cost before the Registry of this Court within a month from today, failing which, Registrar shall request the District Magistrate/Collector to recover the said cost as arrears of land revenue. On receipt of the said cost, the Registrar of this Court shall remit the said amount/cost in the account of Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. 17. As regard the application for initiating proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners is concerned, it will be open for the respondents, if they so desire, to approach the Magistrate concerned. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 19.03.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ABDUL MATEEN, J. THE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J. Misc. Bench No. 2358 of 2013 Anurag Kumar and others ...Petitioner Versus The State of U.P. and others...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.P. Verma Counsel for the Respondents: G.A. Constitution of India-Art. 226- Quashing of FIR-offence under Section 379 IPC and 4/10 Tree Protection ActCommission of Cognizable offence disclosed from FIR-can not be quashedpetitioner shall not be arrested till submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr. P.C. (Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Mateen J) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. Under challenge in the instant writ petition is F.I.R. relating to Case 1 All] Anurag Kumar and others Vs. The State of U.P. and others 353 Crime No. 38 of 2013 under Section 379 I.P.C. & 4/10 Tree Protection Act, P.S. Mall, District Lucknow. 3. We have gone through the F.I.R., which discloses commission of cognizable offence, as such, the same cannot be quashed. 4. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ petition finally with the direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case crime number till submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., provided they co-operate with the investigation, which shall go on. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 07.03.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, J. Service Single 2360 of 2000 Ram Sajiwan ...Petitioner Versus U.P. Co Operative Institutional Services and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri J.P. Singh, Sri M.G. Tripathi Sri R.K. Verma Counsel for the Respondents: H.G.S. Parihar C.S.C. U.P. Cooperative Employee Services Regulation 1975-Regulation 84- Minor punishment-stoppage of annual increment for remaining period of Services-without supplying the copy of enquiry report without indicating date, place and time for enquiry-for minor penalty full fledge enquiry not neededbut when reply to show cause notice not taken in consideration-rather decided to hold formal enquiry-without following proper procedure-order impugned not sustainable.-quashed. Held: Para-19 In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, keeping in view the fact that the very basis of passing of the impugned order of punishment is the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, a copy of which was never provided to the petitioner, the Court comes to the irresistible conclusion that the procedure followed by the opposite parties before passing the impugned order of punishment is absolutely unlawful and against the settled norms and procedure and also against the Regulation 85 of the Regulations 1975. (Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J) 1. Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. 2. Heard Sri M.G. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Diwakar Singh, holding brief of Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no. 2 and 3 i.e. Committee of Management, District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Raebareli and Secretary/General Manager, District Cooperative Bank, Raebareli respectively. 3. The petitioner by means of instant writ petition has assailed validity of punishment order dated 7/8.11.1997, passed by the Secretary/General Manager, District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Raebareli, whereby punishment of stoppage of yearly increment for the remainder period