# Devendra Dutta Bahuguna v. The Secretary, D.B.C.D.F. Ltd. and another - **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 199 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2000 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-dutta-bahuguna-v-the-secretary-d-b-c-d-f-ltd-and-another-39665 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 3All] Devendra Dutta Bahuguna V. The Secretary, D.B.C.D.F. Ltd. and another 199 1. Whether arrest during police investigation can be stayed by this Court only in rarest of rare cases as observed in Satya Pal's case or according to the criteria laid down by Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar's case (supra) ? 2. Whether the full bench in Satya Pal's case (supra) was right in holding that Joginder Kumar's case was delivered on its own 'pecullar facts and circumstances' and hence does not lay down any legal principles relating to the power of arrest and the power of stay of arrrest by this Court ? 16. In view of the above let the papers of this case be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench for reconsidering the correctness of the decision of the full bench decision of this Court in Satya Pal case (supra). Learned Government Advocates may file counter affidavit within a month. Issue notice to respondent no. 3 returnable at an early date. 17. In the meantime we direct that petitioner shall not be arrested in the above case till submission of charge sheet in court but investigation in the above mentioned case may go on. 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( ' 7+( +21·%/( '6 6,1+$ - 6 6,1+$ - 7+( +21·%/( '(9 .$17 75,9(', - 7+( +21·%/( '(9 .$17 75,9(', - &LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 'HYHQGUD 'XWWD %DKXJXQD «3HWLWLRQHU 9HUVXV 7KH 6HFUHWDU\ 'LVWULFW %KHVDM DQG &RRSHUDWLYH 'HYHORSPHQW )HGHUDWLRQ /LPLWHG 0XQL NL UHWL GLVWULFW 7LKDUL *DUKZDO DQG DQRWKHU «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±KROG INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000 200 By the Court 1. Heard Sri C.D. Bahuguna, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.P. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The services of the petitioner, an employee of the respondents, were terminated in connection with the alleged embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 31,588.99 and prolonged absence from duty. 3. However, the petitioner was reinstated in pursuance of an adjudication by the Labour Court vide its order dated 21.5.1996 in his favour. 4. The Labour Court had left open to the respondents to hold an enquiry against the petitioner in respect of the alleged embezzlement. It transpires that an enquiry was held by the respondents wherein it was found that the petitioner had embezzled the amount of Rs. 31,475.49. Then, the matter was referred to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society, Garhwal Mandal, U.P. who passed an order dated 25.6.1988 under section 68 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the Act) directing the recovery of an amount of Rs. 31.588.99 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 5. In pursuance of the above order dated 25.6.1988 the recovery proceedings were initiated on 13.8.1991. The petitioner challenged the recovery proceedings before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13275j of 1991. He prayed for stay of recovery proceedings. The Court vide its order dated 29.5.1991 called upon the respondent/respondents to show cause why the petition be not admitted or heard and disposed of at admission stage. 6. At this stage, it is relevant to notice that the Court did not grant any interim order staying the recovery proceedings. The writ petition remained pending. 7. There is no material on record of the Civil Misc. Writ Petition 13275 of 1991, aforesaid, to indicate that the petitioner took steps to serve notice on the respondents in pursuance of the order of the Court dated 29.5.1991. 8. The petition remained pending and it was eventually dismissed in default on 31.1.1998. The order of dismissal is still intact. 9. During the pendency of civil misc. writ petition no. 13275j of 1991, in the absence of any interim order staying the recovery proceedings, the respondent issued a fresh demand notice which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition, the Court permitted the petitioner to serve the respondents personally in addition to normal mode of service. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit. It is not disputed that the copy of ;the counter affidavit was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner on 16.3.1998. More than 21/2 years have elapsed, no rejoinder affidavit has been filed. 10. In the counter affidavit, on behalf of the respondents, inter-alia, it is pointed out that for redressal of his grievance raised herein the petitioner has got an effective statutory alternative remedy of appeal under section 128 of the 3All] Haji Shafi and others V. State of U.P. 201 Act besides the remedy of approaching the District Magistrate and the Recovery Officer. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the position that the petitioner has got an effective statutory alternative remedy of appeal under section 128 of the Act. 12. Ignoring the factum of availability of statutory alternative remedy of appeal under section 128 of the Act, the petitioner approached this Court on the wrong assertion in para 29 of the petition that no alternative efficacious speedy remedy was available to him. It cannot be gainsaid that invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India on wrong averments dis-entitles the petitioner for the benefit of any discretionary relief from this Court. Such a conduct of the petitioner renders his petition liable to be dismissed, at the thresh-hold. 13. On the facts and circumstances noticed above, in the opinion of the Court, the petitioner is not a fit person in whose favour this Court may exercise its discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 14. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. The interim order dated 12.2.1998 shall stand vacated. 5(9,6,21 -85,6',&7,21 5(9,6,21 -85,6',&7,21 &5,0,1$/ 6,'( &5,0,1$/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+, - 7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+, - &ULPLQDO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI +DML 6KDIL DQG RWKHUV «5HYLVLRQLVWV 9HUVXV 6WDWH RI 83 «2SSRVLWH SDUW\ &RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQWV 6UL 'KDUPHQGUD 6LQJKDO &RXQVHO IRU WKH 2SSRVLWH SDUW\ $*$ &RGH RI &ULPLQDO 3URFHGXUH 6HFWLRQ WKH SUHVHQFH RI DFFXVHG LV QHFHVVDU\ IRU FRPPLWWDO 7KH FRPSOLDQFH RI VHFWLRQ &U3& FDQQRW EH PDGH LQ DEVHQFH RI WKH DFFXVHG +HOG 7KH DFFXVHG FDQQRW EH FRPPLWWHG WR WKH &RXUW RI VHVVLRQ LI WKH\ DUH QRW SUHVHQW LQ WKH FRXUW RI WKH FRPPLWWLQJ 0DJLVWUDWHSDUD By the Court 1. A chargesheet in Crime No. 178 of 1998 for offences under sections 147, 148 and 302 I.P.C. has been submitted against the applicants regarding which case no. 4448 has been registered in the court of C.J.M., Rampur. The applicants were summoned. They moved an application to commit then to the Court of sessions through counsel in their absence. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 17.8.2000 by the C.J.M., Rampur . Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.