# Devendra Singh and others v. Chairman, District Cane Service

- **Citation:** (1999) 2 ILRA 188
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1998-11-27
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-singh-and-others-v-chairman-district-cane-service-39320
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
188
impugned order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction as stated
above. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.11.1998 is liable to
be quashed and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the present petition succeeds
and is allowed. The order dated 27.11.1998 is hereby quashed. The
respondent no.1 is directed to proceed in accordance with the
provisions of the aforesaid Rules and in the light of the observations
made above.

Petition Allowed.
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( '. 6(7+ -
7+( +21·%/( '. 6(7+ -

&,9,/ 0,6& :5,7 3(7,7,21 12 2)

7LODN 5DP 6LQJK DQG RWKHUV
« 3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
&DQH &RPPLVVLRQHU 83 /XFNQRZ DQG RWKHUV« 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
 6KUL 1/ 3DQGH\
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
 0U 301 6LQJK
$GGO $GYRFDWH *HQHUDO

 5HJXODWLRQ RI 83 &DQH &RRSHUDWLYH 6HUYLFH 5HJXODWLRQ
 7KLV UHJXODWLRQ SURYLGHV IRU
DXWRPDWLF GURSSLQJ RI WKH
SURFHHGLQJV RQ WKH HQG RI FUXVKLQJ VHDVRQ ,I WKH GLVFLSOLQDU\
SURFHHGLQJV FRXOG QRW EH FRQFOXGHG ZLWKLQ WKH VDPH FUXVKLQJ
SHULRG (YHQ DQ\ RUGHU SDVVHG WKHUHDIWHU ZRXOG EH YRLG DQG ZKROO\
ZLWKRXW DQ\ MXULVGLFWLRQ.

By the Court

On the ground of certain lapses committed by the petitioner in the
season 1995-96 when he was appointed as seasonal clerk, he was
subjected to a disciplinary proceeding initiated on 9.7.1997. The
disciplinary proceeding was concluded on 9.10.1998. Learned
counsel for the petitioner Mr. N.L.Pandey relying on Regulation 27
of the U.P Cane Co-operative Service Regulation 1975, contends that
1999
------
February, 1
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
189
disciplinary proceeding in respect of a lapse committed during a
particular season, is to be initiated and concluded before the end of
the crushing season or within the time stipulated therein, whichever
is latter, and in default such disciplinary proceeding shall be deemed
to have been automatically dropped. Therefore, according to him, the
lapse committed by the petitioner in crushing season 1995-96, cannot
be gone into after the end of the said crushing season namely on
9.7.1997. He alternately argues that even if it can be so initiated, it
has to be concluded within the time frame stipulated in Regulation
27 and in default the same shall be deemed to have been
automatically dropped, after expiry of the crushing season.
Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there cannot be any
jurisdiction to pass an order against the petitioner on 9.10.98 namely
in the next season. Learned counsel further submits that the
impugned order being wholly without jurisdiction and a nullity, the
petitioner should not be thrown to the process of appeal as provided
in regulation 31. On these grounds he prays for quashing of the
impugned order.

Mr. P.M.N. Singh, Learned Addl. Advocate General, On the
other hand contends that regulation 31 provides for an appeal which
is adequate alternative remedy, and in view of existence of such
adequate remedy, this court sitting in writ jurisdiction should not
enter into the questions which also requires investigation on merits.
According to him, such a question have arisen in the case of
Devendra Singh and others Vs. Chairman, District Cane Service
Authority, Bijnor and others (Writ Petition No. 42588 of 1998,
disposed of on 11.1.1999) Zerox copy of the certified copy of the
said judgment has been produced by him in court. Relying on this
decision, Mr. P.M.N. Singh contends that the writ petition is liable to
be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy .He next contends
that since the question is a question of fact, sitting in writ
jurisdiction, this Court cannot enter into the question, therefore, the
petitioner cannot obtain any relief by invoking writ jurisdiction in the
facts and circumstances of the case.

Mr. N.L. Pandey, however, has not addressed the Court on the
merits of the case. He has confined his submission to the said
question and contends that in view of patent absence of jurisdiction,
it is not necessary that the petitioner should be thrown to the process
of appeal when on the face of it, it is apparent that the order has been
passed without any jurisdiction in consequence of the provisions of
regulation 27 .
1999
------
Tilak Ram
Singh & others
 Vs.
Cane
Commissioner,
& others
------
D.K. Seth, J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
190

I have heard both Mr. Pandey and Mr. P.M.N. Singh at length.

There is no dispute that the petitioner's service is governed by
U.P. Co-operative Service Regulation 1975 and the petitioner is
subject to the provisions thereof. Admittedly, the petitioner is a
seasonal clerk. He was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding
initiated on 9.7.1997 in respect of the lapse committed by him in the
season 1995-96 and the said proceeding was concluded on 9.10.1998
when the impugned order was passed in respect of the said
proceeding. In his usual fairness, Mr. P.M.N. Singh has not disputed
these facts. It appears from annexure-12 & 13 to the writ petition,
that the proceedings against the petitioners were initiated in July
1997 and the impugned order was passed in October, 1998, in
respect of the lapse committed in the season 1995-96. Admittedly,
the crushing season begins on 1st October and continues till the end
of July following. Thus, the season which might have begun in
October, 1997, had come to an end in July 1998 and a different
season has started in October, 1998 and thus order passed on
9.10.1998 falls in subsequent season. In this background, let us test
the provisions of regulation 27 which provides as follows:

" 27. Disciplinary proceedings:

In the event of a complaint against any member of the
seasonal staff, the Secretary of the Union shall made a
preliminary enquiry and if he is satisfied that a prima facie
case is established against the person concerned, he shall
intimate the same to him in the form of charges and call for his
explanation to be submitted within a specified time. The
Secretary of the alongwith definite recommendations to the
District or Zonal Authority, as the case may be, for passing
final order in the case. In case the explanation is not received
within the specified time the Secretary shall submit his final
report to the District or Zonal Authority as the case may be, on
the basis of material already on the file. These proceedings
shall be of a summary nature and the Secretary should not take
more than a month to complete the same. The District or
Zonal Authority as the case may be, should also arrange to
dispose of the same within one month of the receipt of the
final report form the Secretary . In case of default on the part
of Secretary of cane union or the District or Zonal Authority
as the case may be, in not completing the disciplinary
1999
------
Tilak Ram
Singh & others
 Vs.
Cane
Commissioner,
& others
------
D.K. Seth, J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
191
proceedings against a seasonal staff by the end of crushing
season, the same shall be deemed to have been automatically
dropped.

Regulation 27 specifies that in respect of any lapse an
explanation is to be called in the form of charges and the Secretary is
required to examine records and submit his final report with definite
recommendations to the District or Zonal authority for passing final
order. In case no explanation is received, then final report may be
submitted by the Secretary to the District or zonal authority on the
basis of records already on the file. The proceedings is a summary
proceedings which is to be completed within one month by the
Secretary, and the district and zonal authority is also required to
dispose of the matter within one month form the date of receipt of
final report from the Secretary. It is further provided that in case of
default either on the part of the Secretary of the Cane Union or on
the part of the District or Zonal Authority in not completing the
disciplinary proceedings against a seasonal staff by the end of the
crushing season, the same shall be deemed to have been
automatically dropped.

The expression used in Regulation 27 is clear and
unambiguous and has specified specific time and has also provided
for the consequence in respect of non compliance of the time frame
stipulated therein. If there is a provision for automatic dropping of
the proceedings at the end of the crushing season, in cases where the
proceeding could not be completed, there cannot be any different
consequence conceived out of such provision. Therefore, after the
end of the season, if the proceeding is not concluded, the same is
deemed to have been automatically dropped. Thus, once time frame
expires, non-completion of the proceedings within the stipulated
period, results into dropping of the proceedings which cannot be
revived since the same is automatic. Once it is dropped, in the
absence of specific provision, it cannot be revived. The provision of
regulation 27 does not provide any exception that in certain
contingencies such proceedings could be revived. If the disciplinary
proceedings could not be concluded within the stipulated time frame,
any order passed thereafter would be void any a nullity and wholly
without any jurisdiction. The jurisdiction to continue the proceedings
would cease at the end of the crushing season if time frame is not
adhered to. In such circumstances, the impugned order which was
passed in October, 1998 in the proceedings initiated on 9.7.97 ,
thereafter the succeeding crushing season having ended in July 1998,
1999
------
Tilak Ram
Singh & others
 Vs.
Cane
Commissioner,
& others
------
D.K. Seth, J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
192
the provisions of regulation 27 with regard to default clause is
attracted. As soon it is attracted, the disciplinary proceedings having
lapsed the orders passed are wholly without jurisdiction and non est
and has no existence in the eye of law.

Though rightly contended by Mr. P.M.N. Singh, this Court
should not enter into such question when there is alternative remedy
in existence, but in cases where the order on the face of it is without
jurisdiction and void and when the Court is not required to go into
disputed questions of fact and on the basis of the records it can be
ascertained that there are absence of jurisdiction and the orders
passed are nullity and has not existence in the eye of law, in such
circumstances, existence of alternative remedy cannot stant in the
way of invoking writ jurisdiction which is discretionary one.
Alternative remedy is not an ab-solute bar. It is at the discretion of
the Court either to exercise the writ jurisdiction or not to do it. The
question is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case
and it is for the Court to decide that where such discretion should be
exercised judicially. In this case it is apparent on the face of the
record that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and void ab
initio, therefore, it is a case fit for exercising such discretion. If the
order itself is without jurisdiction and void ab initio, in that event,
there cannot be any question of prefering appeal when on the face of
it, the order has no existence.

The decision in the case of Devendra Singh (supra) has not
dealt with this particular point or question since not raised therrin.
Therefore, the said deecision is distinguishable on the question raised
by Mr. Pandey in the present case.

For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The
orders impugned contained in annexure-13 to 20 are hereby quashed.
Let a writ of certiorari do accordingly issue .

Petition Allowed.
1999
------
Tilak Ram
Singh & others
 Vs.
Cane
Commissioner,
& others
------
D.K. Seth, J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
193
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 23 *$5* -
7+( +21·%/( 23 *$5* -

&,9,/ 0,6& :5,7 3(7,7,21 12 2)

+DU 3DO 6LQJK
« 3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
$GGLWLRQDO 6HVVLRQ -XGJH6SHFLDO -XGJH
5DP SXU DQG DQRWKHU
« 5HVSRQGHQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6UL $1 6ULYDVWDYD
6UL 3.6ULYDVWDYD
6UL 1. 6ULYDVWDYD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
 6&

+LQGX 0DUULDJH $FW 6HFWLRQ WKH ILQGLQJ RI WKH IDFW UHFRUGHG E\
WKH FULPLQDO FRXUW LQ SURFHHGLQJV XQGHU VHFWLRQ &U3& DUH
LUUHOHYDQW IRU WKH SDUSRVHV RI WKH SHWLWLRQ XQGHU VHFWLRQ RI WKH
$&7 )LQGLQJ LQ D FLUPLQDO FDVH GRHV QRW RSHUDWH DV UHVMXGLFDWH LQ D
FLYLO VXLW 7KH PHUH IDFW WKDW WKH UHVSRQGHQWV GHQ\ WKH IDFWXU RI
PDUULDJH LV QR EDU WR WKH SRZHU RI WKH FRXUW WR PDNH DQ RUGHU XV
 RI WKH $&7 LQ RUGHU WR FODLP PDLQWHQDFH IRU FKLOGUHQ DV
FRQWHPSODWHG XQGHU VHFWLRQ QR DSSOLDWLRQ LV UHTXLUHG WR EH
PDGH DQG DQ RUGHU PD\ EH SDVVHG LQ IDYRXU RI WKH FKLOGUHQ RQ WKH
DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH ZLIH PRYHG XQGHU VHFWLRQ RI WKH $&7

By the Court

Heard Sri Amar Nath Srivastava learned counsel for the
petitioner. Respondent no.2 Smt. Nanhi had filed a petition No. 33 of
19996 u/s 3 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the
Act') for dissolution of marriage against the present petitioner.
During the pendency of the said Matrimonial petition, respondent
no.2 moved an application u/s 24 of the Act claiming pendente lite
alimony and litigation expenses. This application was registered as
Misc.Case no. 36 of 1997 Learned trial court by the impugned order
dated 13.1.1999, has awarded a sum of Rs. 2000-as litigation
expenses and Rs. 600/- in total as pendente lite limony (Rs. 400 for
the maintenance of Smt. Nanhi- wife-and Rs.200 for the maintenance
of the daughter) This order has been challenged by the petitioner
primarily on the ground that his marriage was never solemnized with
the respondent no.2 and, therefore, question of payment of any
1999
------
February, 25