# C/M Madrasa Arbia Azizia Majaharool Uloom, Maharajganj v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 578
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-04
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 483 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-madrasa-arbia-azizia-majaharool-uloom-maharajganj-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49089
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Societies Registration Act, 1860 -
Sections 25 (1) & (2) - Election dispute -
Amendment in Bye-Laws of society -
Power of Assistant Registrar, extent of -
Assistant Registrar declared both sets of
elections invalid - Validity challenged -
Held, the issue whether the byLaws were
amended in accordance with Law, or so to
speak, the byLaws of the Society is an
issue that is integral to the dispute about
the validity of elections - There is a
dispute about two rival sets of elections
raised bona fide before the Assistant
Registrar, which ought to have been
referred to the Prescribed Authority. The
dispute
has
within
its
fold
issues
regarding the validity of amendments
made to the byLaws and the electoral
college competent to vote. These issues
would also have to be determined by the
Prescribed Authority and it is within the
province
of
the
Prescribed
Authority
seized of the proceedings under Section
25(1) of the Act to decide the question of
membership of the General Body. (Para 17
and 19)
B. Writ jurisdiction - Court process -
Single Judge decided the writ petition
without calling counter affidavit - No time
sought and counsel chosed to address the
court on merit - Question of jurisdiction,
how far can be decided at admission stage
- Held, the appellant cannot be permitted
to raise a grievance of that kind once
before the learned Single Judge the
appellant chose to address the Court on
merits, sans an affidavit on their behalf.
Even otherwise, most of the papers were
on record of the writ petition and the
issue is essentially about jurisdiction
based on facts, that are sufficiently
available on the existing papers - No
prejudice to the appellant, therefore, has
been demonstrated. (Para 20)
Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Magistrate, Prayagraj to consider the
complaint dated 10.05.2021 laid by the writ
petitioner, against respondent no.3, as one
under Section 27 of the Act of 1947 and
proceed with the same in accordance with
law.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 578
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J .

Special Appeal No. 483 of 2022

C/M Madrasa Arbia Azizia Majaharool
Uloom, Maharajganj ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Ray (Addl. C.S.C.), SRI Radha Kant
Ojha(Sr. Adv.), Sri Bhagwan Dutt Pandey

A. Societies Registration Act, 1860 -
Sections 25 (1) & (2) - Election dispute -
Amendment in Bye-Laws of society -
Power of Assistant Registrar, extent of -
Assistant Registrar declared both sets of
elections invalid - Validity challenged -
Held, the issue whether the byLaws were
amended in accordance with Law, or so to
speak, the byLaws of the Society is an
issue that is integral to the dispute about
the validity of elections - There is a
dispute about two rival sets of elections
raised bona fide before the Assistant
Registrar, which ought to have been
referred to the Prescribed Authority. The
dispute
has
within
its
fold
issues
regarding the validity of amendments
made to the byLaws and the electoral
college competent to vote. These issues
would also have to be determined by the
Prescribed Authority and it is within the
province
of
the
Prescribed
Authority
seized of the proceedings under Section
25(1) of the Act to decide the question of
membership of the General Body. (Para 17
and 19)
B. Writ jurisdiction - Court process -
Single Judge decided the writ petition
without calling counter affidavit - No time
sought and counsel chosed to address the
court on merit - Question of jurisdiction,
how far can be decided at admission stage
- Held, the appellant cannot be permitted
to raise a grievance of that kind once
before the learned Single Judge the
appellant chose to address the Court on
merits, sans an affidavit on their behalf.
Even otherwise, most of the papers were
on record of the writ petition and the
issue is essentially about jurisdiction
based on facts, that are sufficiently
available on the existing papers - No
prejudice to the appellant, therefore, has
been demonstrated. (Para 20)
Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. C/M Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahganj & anr.
Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2013 SCC OnLine All
14353
2. Kisan National Education Trust & ors. Vs
Prescribed Authority (Sub-Divisional Magistrate)
& ors., 2018 SCC OnLine All 6120

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
& Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This is a respondent's appeal
arising out of a judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge allowing the
writ petition.

2. The Committee of Management,
Madrasa Arbia Azizia Majaharool Uloom,
Nichlaul Bazar, District Maharajganj has its
affairs torn by factional war. One faction is
represented by Abid Ali, who claims to be
9 All. C/M Madrasa Arbia Azizia Majaharool Uloom, Maharajganj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
579
the lawfully elected Manager, whereas the
other is represented by Muhammadullah.

3. Madrasa Arbia Azizia Majaharool
Uloom,
Nichlaul
Bazar,
District
Maharajganj is a Society registered under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for
short, 'the Act'). It was registered on
18.04.1975. The Society is governed by its
bylaws.
The
Society
maintains
an
educational institution. The institution that
the Society maintains is funded by the
State. The Society has a General Body and
a Committee of Management. The tenure of
the Committee of Management is three
years under the bylaws. Bylaw 23 provides
for the various office bearers, who are to be
elected from amongst the Members of the
General Body. The office bearers are the
President, the Vice President, the Manager,
the Deputy Manager, besides members of
the Committee. Bylaw 26 provides for the
contingency,
where
elections
to
the
Committee of Management cannot be held
on schedule and within three years of the
last elections. It provides for a holding over
in favour of the office bearers of the last
elected management till their successors are
elected.

4. It is the petitioners' case, who are
respondent nos.4 to 6 to this appeal, that
the last undisputed elections to the
Committee of Management were held on
07.10.2018.
In
those
elections,
Muhammadullah, the appellant here, was
elected the Manager whereas Iltaf Husain,
respondent no.6 to the appeal, was elected
the Vice President. The list of office bearers
of the Committee of Management elected
on 07.10.2018 was duly registered under
Section 4 of the Act by the Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Gorakhpur. It is the petitioner-respondents'
case that the appellant, who is effectively
Muhammadullah, designed to grab control
of the Society. For the purpose, he claimed
that he had called a meeting of the General
Body on 16.11.2019 for amending the
bylaws of the Society. He moved an
application on 29.02.2020 before the
Assistant Registrar of Societies asking the
amended bylaws to be registered. The
petitioner-respondents claimed that the
Assistant Registrar without issuing notice
to all members of the General Body and
without following the procedure envisaged
for registering an amendment to the bylaws
of the Society, registered the amended
bylaws on 05.03.2020.

5. The petitioner-respondents then say
that by concealing facts, Muhammadullah
submitted a forged and fabricated list of
office bearers to the Assistant Registrar,
seeking its registration under Section 4 of
the Act. The petitioner-respondents upon
coming to know of the aforesaid fact, filed
objections dated 13.07.2021 before the
Assistant Registrar. It is the petitionerrespondents' case that upon coming to
know of the amendments unauthorizedly
made
by
Muhammadullah,
petitionerrespondent no.6, Iltaf Husain, as the Vice
President of the Society, invoked his
powers under Clause 23 of the bylaws and
convened an emergent meeting of the
Committee of Management on 25.09.2020.
It is pleaded on behalf of the petitionerrespondents that the agenda for the meeting
convened on 25.09.2020 was issued to all
members
of
the
General
Body
in
accordance with the bylaws. The meeting
of the Committee of Management held on
25.09.2020 was attended by office bearers
elected on the basis of the elections dated
07.10.2018.
It
was
held
under
the
Chairpersonship of the Vice President, Iltaf
Husain. It was unanimously resolved,
according to the petitioner-respondents,
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that Muhammadullah was acting against
the Society's interest. He had submitted an
annual list of office bearers for the year
2019-20, different from the one that was in
accord with the undisputed elections held
on 07.10.2018; also different from the
annual list of office bearers registered for
the year 2018-19.

6. A show cause notice was issued by
the
Committee
of
Management
to
Muhammadullah, asking him to explain his
position with a stipulation that in the event
he did not explain his position, the matter
would be placed before the General Body,
where proceedings would be taken for his
removal. The show cause notice indicated
that the meeting of the General Body would
be
held
on
16.10.2020,
where
Muhammadullah could appear personally
and submit his explanation along with
others, who had factioned off.

7. Shorn of further detail, it is the
petitioner-respondents'
case
that
on
16.10.2020, the meeting of the General
Body was convened on schedule, but
Muhammadullah and those siding with
him did not appear or show cause. They
did not attend the meeting of the General
Body. A resolution was passed by the
General Body removing Muhammadullah
from the post of the Manager. Nur Ali and
Akhtar Husain were removed from the
posts of Deputy Manager and Vice
President, respectively. By a resolution of
the same date passed by the General Body
under the bylaws, Abid Ali was elected the
Manager and Rizwan Ullah Khan the
Deputy Manager. Guddu alias Mohd.
Faruq was elected the Vice President of
the Committee of Management for the
year 2020-21. The Manager was directed
to secure registration of the annual list of
office bearers.

8. According to the petitionerrespondents, Muhammadullah, the former
Manager and those siding with him being
expelled, Abid Ali submitted an application
dated 04.11.2020 to the Assistant Registrar
with a request to register the list of office
bearers of the Society for the year 2020-21,
and
further,
to
renew
the Society's
Certificate of Registration. It is the writ
petitioner-respondents' case that the list of
office bearers submitted by them was based
on the undisputed elections held on
07.10.2018 with the necessary modification
to it on account of the decision of the
General Body to remove the Manager,
Muhammadullah and the others, who had
factioned off. Those elected in their stead
were asked to be registered in the list of
office bearers for the year 2020-21. The
said list was submitted to the Assistant
Registrar on 08.10.2021 along with the
details of election proceedings dated
07.10.2021, with a request to register, as
the writ petitioner-respondents claim. It is
the petitioner-respondents' further case that
in between, the appellant got a forged and
fabricated
election
conducted
on
08.10.2021
to
the
Committee
of
Management in accordance with the
bylaws, which the petitioner-respondents
say, were got illegally amended. The list of
office bearers, different from the one
presented by Abid Ali based on the General
Body's resolution, was submitted by
Muhammadullah on 12.10.2021 to the
Assistant Registrar.

9. The writ petitioner-respondents say
that their objections to the amendment
made to the bylaws were pending, but they
were not put to any notice regarding the list
of
office
bearers
submitted
by
Muhammadullah based on the elections
dated 08.10.2021, different from theirs.
Orders were reserved on 20.10.2021 and
9 All. C/M Madrasa Arbia Azizia Majaharool Uloom, Maharajganj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
581
pronounced on 25.04.2022 by the Assistant
Registrar. By the order dated 25.04.2022,
the Assistant Registrar discarded both sets
of elections, determined an electoral
college of 25 members and appointed the
District Minority Welfare Officer as the
Election Officer to hold elections under
Section 25(2) of the Act.

10. It is this order dated 25.04.2022,
that was impugned by the writ petitionerrespondents before the learned Single
Judge.

11. The learned Single Judge held that
it was a case of a dispute in respect of
elections, which the Prescribed Authority
alone, under Section 25(1) of the Act, as
amended in its application to the State of
Uttar Pradesh, was competent to determine.
The Assistant Registrar was not competent
to direct holding of elections, invoking his
powers under Section 25(2) of the Act,
discarding both sets of elections before
him.

12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order,
the fourth respondent to the writ petition,
who are the faction represented by
Muhammadullah,
have
preferred
this
appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the
Rules of the Court.

13. Heard Mr. Narendra Kumar
Chaturvedi,
learned
Counsel
for
the
appellant, Mr. Radha Kant Ojha, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bhagwan
Dutt Pandey, Advocate appearing for
respondent nos.4 to 6 and Mr. A.K. Ray,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2
and 3.

14. The thrust of the submissions
advanced before us by Mr. Narendra
Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the
appellant is that a reference under Section
25(1) of the Act is to be made by the
Registrar or the Assistant Registrar, as the
case may be, when confronted by two rival
sets of elections, if the dispute is bona fide.
He submits that the dispute on facts should
be between two bona fide rival claims and
not merely one where a dispute is raised
apparently without basis. In case where a
dispute has no basis to it ex facie, Mr.
Chaturvedi says that the Assistant Registrar
is not obliged to make a reference under
Section 25(1) of the Act. He can decide and
pass appropriate orders in the exercise of
his
powers
under
Section
4
with
consequential orders under Section 25(2) of
the Act.

15. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Ojha,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Bhagwan Dutt Pandey, Advocate appearing
for respondent nos.4 to 6, submits that the
case is one where there was per-eminently
a dispute about two sets of elections held
by office bearers of the elected Committee
of Management that was an office on the
basis of the undisputed elections dated
07.10.2018. In between, the appellant had
factioned off, amended the bylaws and
conducted an election based on an
incompetent electoral college, all resting on
the
illegally
amended
bylaws.
The
amendment to bylaws, that was undertaken
single handedly and without authority of
law, by Muhammadullah was also the
subject matter of dispute. Mr. Ojha submits
that Muhammadullah had been removed
from the post of Manager of the Society by
a competent resolution of the General Body
dated 16.10.2020, that was passed after the
purported elections, that he claims to have
submitted, as he was acting without
authority and contrary to the interest of the
Society. In the background of the aforesaid
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
facts,
the
elections
convened
by
Muhammadullah
were
without
the
authority of law.

16. The learned Senior Advocate also
submits
that
the
Assistant
Registrar
ultimately held that both sets of elections
were invalid and assumed jurisdiction
under Section 25(2) of the Act. In doing
that, he pronounced upon the validity of the
elections held by the writ petitionerrespondents on 07.10.2018 in accordance
with law and also upon the elections held
on 08.10.2021 by Muhammadullah. Thus,
according to the learned Senior Advocate,
the Assistant Registrar proceeded to judge
the validity of elections held by two office
bearers coming from a Committee of
Management that was elected in the last
undisputed elections, which he had no
jurisdiction to do. There was an election
dispute involved, clearly bona fide, at least
about
the
writ
petitioner-respondents'
claim, that merited reference to the
Prescribed Authority.

17. We have bestowed our due
consideration to the case of parties and
the rival submissions at the Bar. We find
that there is no issue about the fact that
both the writ petitioner-respondents and
the appellant were office bearers of an
undisputed Committee of Management,
that was elected to office on 07.10.2018.
The Committee had a term of three years
under the bylaws with a clause for
holding over under until fresh elections.
In between, it appears that a dispute in
the Management surfaced, because the
Manager Muhammadullah got the bylaws
amended, which the Assistant Registrar
registered on the basis of an application
dated 29.02.2020. It is the writ petitionerrespondents' case that this amendment
was registered without notice to them or
issuing notice to all members of the
General Body. It is seriously in dispute
whether the procedure for effecting an
amendment to the bylaws was followed
by the Assistant Registrar. We find that
the issue whether the bylaws were
amended in accordance with law, or so to
speak, the bylaws of the Society is an
issue that is integral to the dispute about
the validity of elections now held in two
rival sets-one by the appellant and the
other by the writ petitioner-respondents.
The Assistant Registrar by the order
impugned, before the learned Single
Judge, held both sets of elections invalid,
assumed jurisdiction under Section 25(2)
of the Act to hold elections himself
through his nominee. In doing that, he
pronounced upon the validity of elections
of both parties, whose claims cannot be
said to be mala fide, fantastic, or ones
that did not merit consideration. Both sets
of elections have been held by two sets of
office bearers of the last undisputed
Committee of Management. The dispute
between them is about the amendment
made to the bylaws at the instance of the
appellant
and
the
electoral
college
competent to vote. It is, thus, in our
opinion, a thick and bona fide election
dispute, that was up before the Assistant
Registrar and he had no jurisdiction to
determine. He ought to have referred it to
the Prescribed Authority under Section
25(1) of the Act, who is the competent
Authority to summarily determine it,
subject only to the final determination of
the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

18. The issue whether the Assistant
Registrar ought to have referred the issue to
the Prescribed Authority under Section
25(1) of the Act fell for consideration of a
Division Bench of this Court in C/M
Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahganj and
9 All. C/M Madrasa Arbia Azizia Majaharool Uloom, Maharajganj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
583
another v. State of U.P. and others, 2013
SCC OnLine All 14353, where it was held:

6. Both these provisions have been
harmonized in the judgment of the Division
Bench in All-India Council (AIR 1988 All
236) (supra) where it was held as follows:--

"Section
25
of
the
Societies
Registration Act as amended by the State
Legislature enacts a comprehensive code
and creates a designated forum or tribunal
for adjudication in a summary manner of
all disputes or doubts in respect of the
election or continuance in office of an
office-bearer of such society. It also
provides the grounds upon which the
election of an office-bearer can be set aside.
The procedure to be followed for filling up
of the vacancies arising from the decisions
rendered by the Prescribed Authority under
sub-section (i) of Section 25 has also been
laid down (Section 25(2)).
7. It will, therefore, be seen that insofar as
disputes or doubts in respect of the election
or continuance in office of the officebearers of a society registered in Uttar
Pradesh are concerned, the Legislature has
created a specific forum and laid down an
exhaustive procedure for determination of
the same under Section 25. There is no
other provision, express or otherwise,
providing
for
determination
of
such
disputes specifically. It is settled law that
where, as here, the Legislature creates a
specific forum and lays an exhaustive
procedure for determination of a particular
class of disputes in respect of matters
covered by the statute, such disputes can be
determined only in that forum and in the
manner prescribed thereunder and not
otherwise. If, therefore, a dispute is raised
with regard to the election or continuance
in office of an office-bearer of a society
registered in Uttar Pradesh, the same has to
be
decided
only
by
the
Prescribed
Authority under Section 25(1) and not by
the Registrar, save, of course, to the
decision of the Prescribed Authority being
subject to the result of a civil suit."

7. The judgment of the Division
Bench came up for consideration in Gram
Shiksha Sudhar Samiti (2010 (5) ALJ 41)
(supra). In the subsequent judgment the
Division Bench held that the earlier
judgment has harmonized the provisions of
both Sections 4 and 25 and what can be
inquired into under Section 25 of the Act,
cannot be gone into under the proviso to
Section 4. In that case, the Division Bench
held that the learned single Judge ought to
have set aside an order of the Registrar
dated 11 July 2010 and ought to have
directed the Registrar to refer the objection
to the Prescribed Authority tinder Section
25(1). The Division Bench held that once
an application for talcing on record the
name of the office bearers and an objection
as to the validity of the office bearers who
were duly elected has been filed, the
Registrar considering under Section 25(1)
ought to refer the matter to the Prescribed
Authority. Undoubtedly, in the subsequent
decision in the Committee of Management
(supra) it has been held that the Registrar
"is not a post office for referring any and
every dispute". The Division Bench there
held that more than three years after the
holding of an election there was no reason
to entertain a petition at the belated stage.

8. In the present case, a list was
submitted by the third respondent, of office
bearers under Section 4 for 2013-14. The
list was objected too. The Deputy Registrar
had
conflicting
claims
between
the
appellants on the one hand and the third
respondent on the other hand. Hence when
an application for taking on record the
names of the officer bearers was filed and
an objection to the validity of the elected
office bearers was placed before him, the
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Registrar ought to have referred the dispute
to the Prescribed Authority under Section
25(1). In entertaining the dispute himself
and going into merits of the rival claims,
the
Deputy
Registrar
has
clearly
transgressed
his
jurisdiction.
The
jurisdiction to decide any doubt or dispute
in respect of an election of the office
bearers of the Society lies with the
Prescribed Authority and the Registrar
ought to have made a reference to the
Prescribed Authority.

9. The learned Single Judge is right in
holding that the Prescribed Authority would
have to decide under Section 25(1) upon
the dispute which is raised. To that extent
the observations of the learned single Judge
are justi-fied. However, we find merit in the
contention of the appellants that the
petition could not have been dismissed
merely with liberty to move the Prescribed
Authority. The appropriate direction to
pass, was to set aside the order of the
Deputy Registrar which is an order without
jurisdiction since the Deputy Registrar has
decided
an
issue
which
fell
within
exclusive
domain
of
the
Prescribed
Authority.

19. We, therefore, find that on the
facts here, there is a dispute about two rival
sets of elections raised bona fide before the
Assistant Registrar, which ought to have
been referred to the Prescribed Authority.
The dispute has within its fold issues
regarding the validity of amendments made
to the bylaws and the electoral college
competent to vote. These issues would also
have to be determined by the Prescribed
Authority and it is within the province of
the Prescribed Authority seized of the
proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Act
to decide the question of membership of the
General Body. In this regard, reference may
be made to the decision of this Court in
Kisan National Education Trust and
others v. Prescribed Authority (SubDivisional Magistrate) and others, 2018
SCC OnLine All 6120, where it has been
held:

62. In Vidur Sewa Ashram v. State of
U.P.2018 (5) ADJ 717, a Coordinate Bench
of this Court was considering the question
whether membership of the general body of
a society could be decided by the
Prescribed Authority incidentally to the
dispute relating to elections.

63.
This
Court
considered
the
provisions of section 25(1)''of the Societies
Registration Act and also the provisions of
section 25(2) and also section 4(B) of the
Act. It considered the judgment rendered
by this Court in Sita Ram Rai v. Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and chits,
Gorakhpur (2003) 52 ALR 246 and
Vindhya Vasini v. Prescribed Authority
(2002) 47 ALR 541 and observed that in
Sita Ram Rai's case, it has been held that
election disputes, if any, including validity
of members entitled to vote can be decided
by the Prescribed Authority under section
25(1) of the Act. In Vindhyawasni case, it
was held, that the decision relating to
number of members of general body
entitled to participate in election is
incidental for deciding the doubt about the
validity of elections under sub-section (1)
of section 25 of the Act, and therefore can
be decided by the Prescribed Authority.

20. It is in the last contended by the
learned Counsel for the appellant that the
learned Single Judge could not have
disposed of the writ petition finally at the
admission stage without inviting a counter
affidavit. True, it is that normally in a writ
petition, particularly an original petition,
the respondents must be given opportunity
to respond by filing a counter affidavit, but
9 All. Ajai Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
585
here we find that the appellant was heard
and was represented by the learned Counsel
before the learned Single Judge. There is no
case either on the grounds raised or in the
affidavit
that
the
learned
Counsel
representing the appellant before the
learned Single Judge asked for time to file
a counter affidavit, which was not granted.
Apparently, the learned Counsel for the
appellant, as the tenor of the judgment
impugned would show, chose to address the
Court on merits without seeking time to file
a counter affidavit. In our opinion,
therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted
to raise a grievance of that kind once before
the learned Single Judge the appellant
chose to address the Court on merits, sans
an affidavit on their behalf. Even otherwise,
most of the papers were on record of the
writ petition and the issue is essentially
about jurisdiction based on facts, that are
sufficiently available on the existing
papers. No prejudice to the appellant,
therefore, has been demonstrated. In our
opinion, the learned Single Judge has
committed no error in directing the
Assistant Registrar to make a reference
under Section 25(1) of the Act.

21. No point was argued or raised
before us in addition to that which was
considered and dealt with by the learned
Single Judge.

22. We find no merit in the appeal.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 585
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:LUCKNOW 26.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-A No. 6602 of 2000

Ajai Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prashant Kumar, Siddharth Lal Vaish, Sudeep
Kumar, Sushil Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - UP Government Servants
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - R. 6
& 7 - Disciplinary proceeding - Principle
of
Natural
Justice
-
No
supply
of
preliminary
enquiry
report
to
the
employee
-
Effect
-
Held,
without
supplying the preliminary enquiry report
to the employee, the impugned order
cannot be passed - The impugned order
has been passed in utter disregard of the
principles of natural justice, hence, is not
sustainable in Law. (16 and 19)
B. Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding -
Principle of Natural Justice - Opportunity of
hearing - Finding of preliminary enquiry
report, how far reliable in regular disciplinary
proceeding - Held, once the decision is taken
by the authorities to institute regular
disciplinary proceedings then findings in the
preliminary enquiry report ordinarily is not to
be relied upon - In case, such a report is to
be
relied
upon,
then
the
delinquent
employees has to be confronted with such
materials, and only after hearing their
version in the matter that such a report could
be relied upon. Any other course followed
would clearly be a violation of principles of
natural justice. (Para 22)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. U.O.I. & anr. Vs Tulsiram Patel; (1985) 3 SCC
398
2. Hari Niwas Gupta Vs St. of Bihar & anr.;
(2020) 3 SCC 153