# Dharam Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 54
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-01-25
- **Case number:** Service Bench No. 1608 of 2009
- **Bench:** Devi Prasad Singh, Anil Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dharam-raj-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41896
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Sudeep Seth

U.P.
Cooperative
Society
Employees
Centerlised Services Regulations 1978Regulation-61
(a)-
Dismissal
from
service-Petitioner working as Dy.General
Manager
in
Cooperative
Bank-facing
disciplinary proceeding-after receiving
charge sheet-repeatedly demand copies
of supporting document-request for oral
evidence to cross examine the witnesses
by indicating place, time and date-order
passed
merely
after
receiving
explanation in pursuance of enquiry
report-held-not only principle of Natural
justice
but
statutory
provisions
regulating
disciplinary
proceeding
violated dismissal set-a-side with all
consequential benefits.

Held: Para 27 & 29

Accordingly, it shall not be open to the
respondents to proceed in a manner
different than what has been provided in
regulation
61
of
the
Regulations
provided
for
the
disciplinary
proceedings.

In all, what has been stated herein
above, the impugned order seems to be
violative of not only principle of natural
justice but also statutory provisions
(supra)
regulating
the
disciplinary
proceedings.
Case law discussed:
JT 2010 (1) SC 618; 1990 LCD 486; 1998 LCD
199; 1980 Vol. 3 SCC 459; 1998 (6) SCC 651;
1998 SC 117; 1985 SC 1121; (2009) 2 SCC
570; (2010) 2 SCC 772; AIR 1936 PC 253;AIR
1961 SC 1527; AIR 1963 Sc 1077; AIR 1964
SC 358; AIR 1967 SC 295; 1999 (8) SCC 266;
2000 (7) SCC 296; AIR 2001 SC 1512; 2002
(1) SCC 633; AIR 2004 SC 1657; (1876) 1
Ch.D. 426; AIR 1972 SC 2077; AIR 1975 SC
915; AIR 1979 SC 1573; AIR 1980 SC 326; AIR
1986 SC 3160; 1995 (1) SCC 156; 2008 (9)
SCC 31; 2010 (5) SCC 349.

## Text

54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
required to be determined in the light of the
observations made by the Supreme Court in
S. Kaushnuma Begum (supra). The matter,
therefore, needs to go back to the Tribunal
for giving fresh award.

12. The judgment given by the
Tribunal in so far as it rejects the claim is,
accordingly, set aside. The Tribunal shall
give a fresh award as expeditiously as is
possible.

13. The First Appeal From Order is
allowed to the extent indicated above.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.01.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.

Service Bench No. 1608 of 2009

Dharam Raj Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.C. Yadav,
Vishal Kumar Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.,
Sudeep Seth

U.P.
Cooperative
Society
Employees
Centerlised Services Regulations 1978Regulation-61
(a)-
Dismissal
from
service-Petitioner working as Dy.General
Manager
in
Cooperative
Bank-facing
disciplinary proceeding-after receiving
charge sheet-repeatedly demand copies
of supporting document-request for oral
evidence to cross examine the witnesses
by indicating place, time and date-order
passed
merely
after
receiving
explanation in pursuance of enquiry
report-held-not only principle of Natural
justice
but
statutory
provisions
regulating
disciplinary
proceeding
violated dismissal set-a-side with all
consequential benefits.

Held: Para 27 & 29

Accordingly, it shall not be open to the
respondents to proceed in a manner
different than what has been provided in
regulation
61
of
the
Regulations
provided
for
the
disciplinary
proceedings.

In all, what has been stated herein
above, the impugned order seems to be
violative of not only principle of natural
justice but also statutory provisions
(supra)
regulating
the
disciplinary
proceedings.
Case law discussed:
JT 2010 (1) SC 618; 1990 LCD 486; 1998 LCD
199; 1980 Vol. 3 SCC 459; 1998 (6) SCC 651;
1998 SC 117; 1985 SC 1121; (2009) 2 SCC
570; (2010) 2 SCC 772; AIR 1936 PC 253;AIR
1961 SC 1527; AIR 1963 Sc 1077; AIR 1964
SC 358; AIR 1967 SC 295; 1999 (8) SCC 266;
2000 (7) SCC 296; AIR 2001 SC 1512; 2002
(1) SCC 633; AIR 2004 SC 1657; (1876) 1
Ch.D. 426; AIR 1972 SC 2077; AIR 1975 SC
915; AIR 1979 SC 1573; AIR 1980 SC 326; AIR
1986 SC 3160; 1995 (1) SCC 156; 2008 (9)
SCC 31; 2010 (5) SCC 349.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.C. Yadav, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri
Sudeep Seth, learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the record.

2. Affidavits have been exchanged
between the parties.

With the consent of the parties'
counsel, the writ petition is finally heard
and is being decided at admission stage.
1 All] Dharam Raj Singh V. State of U.P. and others
55

3. The petitioner who was a Dy.
General
Manager
in
respondent
Cooperative Bank has approached this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, being aggrieved of the impugned
order dated 24.08.2009 (Annexure-1) by
which the petitioner has been dismissed
from service after disciplinary proceedings.

4. While serving as Dy. General
Manger in the respondent Bank at Banda
the petitioner was served with a chargesheet dated 12th February, 2008, a copy of
which has been filed as Annexure No. 10 to
the writ petition. While serving the
chargesheet, 9 charges relating to slackness
and misconduct were levelled against the
petitioner. After receipt of the chargesheet,
the petitioner vide letter dated 22th
February,
2008,
demanded
certain
documents relating to allegation on record.
The Inquiry Officer, by his letter dated
13.03.2008 wrote to the Secretary/General
Manager, District Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Pratapgarh
to
provide
the
relevant
documents
relating
to
the
charges.
However, a plea was taken by the petitioner
that complete documents or order were not
supplied to him. While taking such plea the
petitioner has also submitted reply dated
27th March, 2008 with a request to the
Inquiry Officer to provide a copy of the
complaint but the same was not provided to
him. However, according to the petitioner's
counsel, the alleged complaint was the very
foundation to proceed against the petitioner.
The petitioner also denied the charges
levelled against him and stated that he has
performed his duties up to mark and no
irregularity or illegality has been committed
by him.

5. After receipt of reply to the
chargesheet dated 12th February, 2008, the
Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry and
submitted a report to the disciplinary
authority and in consequence thereof, the
disciplinary authority by the impugned
order dismissed the petitioner from services.

6. After submission of reply dated
27th March, 2008, the petitioner has sent a
letter dated 03th February, 2009 to the
Member
Secretary,
Cadre
Authority,
Cooperative Bank, Centralised Services,
Lucknow mentioning therein that the
petitioner has made a request to the Inquiry
Officer for fixing date, time and place to
record evidence, coupled with the prayer to
provide opportunity of personal hearing but
the same has not been allowed to the
petitioner. Accordingly, it was stated by the
petitioner before Member Secretary, Cadre
Authority, Cooperative Bank, Centralised
Services, Lucknow that inquiry seems to be
continuing against him ex-parte and as such
the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer
cannot be allowed to be believed. The
Member
Secretary,
Cadre
Authority,
Cooperative Bank, Centralised Services,
Lucknow instead of taking a decision on the
letter submitted by petitioner on 03rd
February, 2009 issued a Show Cause Notice
dated 16th April, 2009 to the petitioner
calling his explanation with regard to the
report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. In
response to it, the petitioner submitted a
reply dated 24th April, 2009 to the Cadre
Authority mentioning therein that inquiry
report submitted by the Inquiry Officer is
violative of principle of natural justice as no
reasonable opportunity was given to him to
defend his cause and no date, time and place
was fixed by the Inquiry Officer while
proceeding with the inquiry.

7. Thereafter, by letter dated 12th
May, 2009, the Additional Secretary of
Cadre
Authority,
Cooperative
Bank,
Centralised Services, U.P., Lucknow has
56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
written a letter, granting a month's time to
submit explanation. On 20th May, 2009, the
petitioner written letter to the Additional
Secretary of Cadre Authority, Cooperative
Bank, Centralised Services, U.P., Lucknow
requesting time up to 30th June, 2009 which
was granted to him. The petitioner has
submitted his explanation dated 22.07.2009
denying all the charges levelled against him
and
requested
to
provide
relevant
documents
and
opportunity
to
cross
examine the witnesses in his defence. After
receipt of reply from petitioner, the
petitioner was dismissed from the service
by the impugned order dated 24th of
August, 2009.

8. At the face of record, it appears that
in spite of repeated requests made by the
petitioner, the respondents have not given
reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to
defend his cause. The petitioner made
categorical request that some date, time and
place be fixed by the Inquiry Officer. He
also requested to give an opportunity to
cross examine the witnesses and lead
evidence in defence.

9. According to the petitioner's
counsel, even opportunity of hearing was
not given to the petitioner in spite of
demand raised in writing. These facts have
not been denied by respondents' counsel.

10. Now, it is well settled proposition
of law that regular inquiry means after
serving the chargesheet and receipt of reply
to the chargesheet, oral evidence should be
recorded with opportunity to cross-examine
the witnesses. Thereafter, the delinquent
employee has a right to lead evidence in
defene and opportunity of personal hearing
should be given by the inquiry officer. Even
if the government employee does not
cooperate with the enquiry proceedings, it
shall not give escape to the enquiry officer
from concluding the enquiry in accordance
with law. It shall always be incumbent upon
the enquiry officer to record finding, may be
by ex parte proceeding and thereafter
submit a report to the disciplinary authority.
It is also necessary that the documents
relied upon by the prosecution should be
proved vide JT 2010 (1) SC 618 State of
U.P. and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha,
1990 LCD 486 Jagdish Prasad Singh Vs.
State of U.P., 1998 LCD 199 Avatar
Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1979 VI. I SCC
60 Town Area Committee, Jalalabad Vs.
Jagdish Prasad, 1980 Vol. 3 SCC 459
Managing
Director,
U.P.
Welfare
Housing Corporation Vs. Vijay Narain
Bajpai, 1998 (6) SCC 651 State of U.P.
Vs. Shatrughan Lal, 1998 SC 117
Chandrama Tewari Vs. Union of India
and others, 1985 SC 1121 Anil Kumar
Vs. Presiding Officer and others, (2009) 2
SCC 570 Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab
National Bank and others and (2010) 2
SCC 772 State of U.P. and others Vs.
Saroj Kumar Sinha.

11. In case for any reason, it is not
feasible or possible to provide the copy of
documents, then opportunity should be
given to inspect the records.

12. In the present case, it appears that
such opportunity has not been provided to
the petitioner. After receipt of reply to
chargesheet, it was incumbent on the
Inquiry Officer to adduce evidence to
substantiate the charges and prove the
document like other evidence so that the
delinquent employee may cross examine the
witnesses with regard to authenticity of
documents. Of course, there may be a
situation where documents are admitted by
the delinquent employee under his own
signature, then in such situation, it may not
1 All] Dharam Raj Singh V. State of U.P. and others
57
be necessary to prove such documents but
so far as allegations contained in the
chargesheet are confined, it should be
proved like other evidence. After recording
the evidence, it shall be incumbent on the
Inquiry Officer to give an opportunity to
delinquent employee to lead evidence in
defence and if necessary may produce its
own witness to assail the charges, Inquiry
Officer should also afford opportunity of
personal hearing with regard to evidence
collected during the course of inquiry from
over either side. Thereafter he or she may
submit the report to the disciplinary
authority.

13. Attention has been invited to
recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and
others Vs. Saroj Kumr Sinha 2010 (2)
SCC 772. The aforesaid proposition of law
has been reiterated by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court. For convenience, the relevant portion
from the judgment of Saroj Kumar Sinha
(Supra) is reproduced hereunder:-

"The proposition of law that a
government employee facing a department
enquiry is entitled to all the relevant
statement, documents and other materials to
enable
him
to
have
a
reasonable
opportunity to defend himself in the
department enquiry against the charges is
too well established to need any further
reiteration. Nevertheless given the facts of
this case we may re-emphasise the law as
stated by this Court in the case of State of
Punjab vs. Bhagat Ram (1975) 1 SCC 155:

"The
State
contended
that
the
respondent was not entitled to get copies of
statements. The reasoning of the State was
that
the
respondent
was
given
the
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
and during the cross-examination the
respondent would have the opportunity of
confronting
the
witnesses
with
the
statements. It is contended that the synopsis
was adequate to acquaint the respondent
with the gist of the evidence.

The
meaning
of
a
reasonable
opportunity of showing cause against the
action proposed to be taken is that the
government
servant
is
afforded
a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself
against the charges on which inquiry is
held. The government servant should be
given an opportunity to deny his guilt and
establish his innocence. He can do so when
he is told what the charges against him are.
He can do so by cross-examining the
witnesses produced against him. The object
of supplying statements is that the
government servant will be able to refer to
the previous statements of the witnesses
proposed to be examined against the
government servant. Unless the statements
are given to the government servant he will
not be able to have an effective and
usefulcross-examination.

It is unjust and unfair to deny the
government servant copies of statements of
witnesses examined during investigation
and produced at the inquiry in support of
the charges levelled against the government
servant. A synopsis does not satisfy the
requirements of giving the government
servant
a
reasonable
opportunity
of
showing cause against the action proposed
to be taken."

We may also notice here that the
counsel for the appellant sought to argue
that respondent had even failed to give
reply to the show cause notice, issued under
Rule 9. The removal order, according to
him, was therefore justified. We are unable
to accept the aforesaid submission. The first
58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
enquiry report dated 3.8.2001, is clearly
vitiated, for the reasons stated earlier. The
second enquiry report can not legally be
termed as an enquiry report as it is a
reiteration of the earlier, enquiry report.
Asking the respondent to give reply to the
enquiry report without supply of the
documents is to add insult to injury.

In our opinion the appellants have
deliberately misconstrued the directions
issued by the High Court in Writ Petition
937/2003. In terms of the aforesaid order
the respondents was required to submit a
reply to the charge sheet upon supply of the
necessary document by the appellant. It is
for this reason that the High Court
subsequently while passing an interim order
on 7.6.2004 in Writ Petition No. 793/2004
directed the appellant to ensure compliance
of the order passed by the Division Bench
on 23.7.2003. In our opinion the actions of
the enquiry officers in preparing the reports
ex-parte without supplying the relevant
documents has resulted in miscarriage of
justice to the respondent. The conclusion is
irresistible that the respondent has been
denied a reasonable opportunity to defend
himself in the enquiry proceedings."

14. Taking into aforesaid proposition
of law in the present context, there appears
to be no justification on the part of the
respondents not to record oral evidence and
provide the copy of relevant documents
which has got bearing with the controversy
in question.

15. Sri Sudeep Seth, learned counsel
for the respondents submits that the
allegation against the petitioner relates to
infringement of trust deposed upon him by
the bank and being serious one, no liberal
view should be taken by the court.

16. Submission of respondent's
counsel seems to be not correct. The gravity
of offence or misconduct may have got
bearing with the quantum of punishment but
so far as procedural law is concerned, that
should be enforced in its letter and spirit.

17. Article 14 is the pulse beat of the
Constitution of India and in the democratic
polity governed by rule of law, the
procedure prescribed by the law must be
followed in letter and spirit without being
influenced by gravity of offence. Gravity of
offence does not give an option to the
employer to proceed in its own very manner
and arbitrarily. It has been consistent view
of the courts right from the Privy Council
that in a civilized society, every person is
entitled for equal protection.

18. It is settled law that in case the
authorities want to do certain things, then
that should be done in the manner provided
in the Act or statutory provisions and not
otherwise vide Nazir Ahmed Vs. King
Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253; Deep
Chand Versus State of Rajasthan, AIR
1961 SC 1527, Patna Improvement Trust
Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Devi and others, AIR
1963 Sc 1077; State of U.P. Vs. Singhara
Singh and other, AIR 1964 SC 358;
Barium Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Company
Law Board AIR 1967 SC 295, (Para 34)
Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prsad
and others 1999 (8) SCC 266; Delhi
Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban
and others, 2000 (7) SCC 296; Dhanajay
Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001
SC 1512, Commissioner of Income Tax,
Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and
others, 2002 (1) SCC 633; Prabha
Shankar Dubey Vs. State of M.P., AIR
2004 SC 1657, Taylor Vs. Taylor, (1876)
1 Ch.D. 426; Nika Ram Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077;
1 All] Dharam Raj Singh V. State of U.P. and others
59
Ramchandra Keshav Adke Vs. Govind
Joti Chavare and others, AIR 1975 SC
915; Chettiam Veettil Ammad and
another Vs. Taluk Land Board and
others, AIR 1979 SC 1573; State of Bihar
and others Vs. J.A.C. Saldanna and
others, AIR 1980 SC 326, A.K. Roy and
another Vs. State of Punjab and others;
AIR 1986 SC 3160; State of Mizoram Vs.
Biakchhawna, 1995 (1) SCC 156.

19. Hence petitioner cannot divested
from due compliance of principle of natural
justice only because allegation on record are
serious.

20. The respondents' counsel has
relied upon a case reported in 2008 (9) SCC
31 Haryana Financial Corporation and
another Vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja.

21. In the case of Kailash Chandra
Ahuja (Supra) their Lordships of Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that in case,
violation of principle of natural justice has
not caused prejudice to the petitioner
concerned, then it shall not create a ground
to assail the orders passed by authority. The
case of Kailash Chandra Ahuja (Supra) is
not
applicable
to
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case for two reasons
viz. Firstly, it has been delivered by a Bench
of Hon'ble two Judges and the case relied
upon by petitioner's counsel i.e. Saroj
Kumar Sinha (supra) is also by Hon'ble two
Judges which is a latter decision and under
the law of precedence in case there is
conflict
between
two
judgments
of
coordinate bench, the latter should be
followed.

22. The second reason is that in the
present case, the repeated requests made by
petitioner pointing out the illegality and
prejudice which may be caused due to nonfurnishing of documents and recording of
evidence were not considered by the
respondents. Once the delinquent employee
himself well in time raised a plea that he
shall be prejudiced in case he is not
provided an opportunity to cross examine
the evidence or lead evidence in defence,
then in such situation, the denial of principle
of natural justice shall cause prejudice and
cannot be defended under the colour of
principle of no prejudice.

23. The other judgment relied upon by
the respondents' counsel is reported in 2010
(5) SCC 349, Union of India Vs. Alok
Kumar. In case of Alok Kumar (Supra)
while reiterating the aforesaid principle of
no prejudice, their Lordships held that in
case de facto prejudcie caused to the
employees, then in such situation, if
necessary, court can interfere with the
departmental inquiry but for that employee
must show that prejudice has been caused to
him. The 'Judicia Posteriora sunt' in lege
fortiora requires to show that de facto
prejudice has been caused.

24. In the present case, the petitioner
from the very beginning submitted that de
facto prejudice has been caused. Even
before passing of the impugned order or
during continuance of inquiry by submitting
a representation to the Cadre Authority
(supra) the petitioner made representation
that some date, time and place be fixed by
the Inquiry Officer and the documents be
provided, otherwise, he may be prejudiced.
Vide letter dated 11th April, 2008, the
petitioner has dismissed one Sri Daya Ram
in accordance with rules while discharging
his obligation. All these aspect of the matter
and none supply of material document,
shows that in case the petitioner would have
been given opportunity to cross examine the
evidence, he would have pleaded better to
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
defend his cause. Accordingly, because of
non-compliance of principle of natural
justice the petitioner has suffered a set back.

25. Apart from above, under
regulation 61 of the Regulations, quoted in
para 14 of the writ petition, it was
incumbent on the Inquiry Officer to produce
the evidence with opportunity to cross
examine
the
witness
after
serving
chargesheet. Opportunity should have also
been given to the petitioner to adduce his
own evidence with liberty to the Presenting
Officer to cross examine the witnesses. For
convenience Regulation 61(a), quoted in
para 14 of the writ petition is reproduced as
under :-

"Para 14 - That regulation 61 speaks
about Disciplinary proceedings which is
quoted herein under:-

Disciplinary Proceedings:

61. (a) The disciplinary proceedings
against a member shall be conducted by the
Inquiry Officer (referred to in clause (d)
below with due observances of the
principles of natural justice for which it
shall be necessary that:

(i) the member shall be served with a
charge sheet duly approved by the member
secretary containing specific charges and
mention of evidence in support of each
charge and he shall be required to submit
explanation in respect of the charge within
reasonable time which shall not be less than
fifteen days:

(ii) such a member shall also be given
an opportunity to produce at his own cost or
to cross-examine witnesses in his defence
and shall also be given an opportunity of
being heard in person, if he so desires:

(iii) if no explanation in respect of
charge sheet is received or the explanation
submitted is unsatisfactory the competent
authority
may
award
appropriate
punishment considered necessary.

(b)(i) Where the member is dismissed
or removed from service on the ground of
conduct which has led to his conviction on a
criminal charge: or

(ii) Where the member refuses or fails
without sufficient cause to appeal before the
Inquiry Officer which specifically called
upon in writing to appear: or

(iii) Where a member has absconded
and his whereabout are not know to
authority for more than three months: or

(iv) Where it is otherwise (for reasons
to be recorded) not possible to communicate
with him, the competent authority may
award appropriate punishment without
taking
or
continuing
disciplinary
proceedings.

(c) Disciplinary proceedings shall be
taken by the appointing authority against the
member either sue motto or on a report
made to this effect by an inspecting
Authority or the Chairman of the bank
under whose control the member is working
or may have worked.

(d) The Inquiring Officer shall be
appointed by the Member Secretary."

26. Once the statute itself provides
certain procedure with regard to disciplinary
proceeding, then it shall be incumbent on
the Inquiry Officer to adhere to the
procedure. It is well settled law that a thing
should be done in the manner as provided in
the statute and not otherwise (supra). Thus
1 All] Kalloo and others V. Satti Din
61
so far as present case is concerned,
petitioner's right for compliance of
natural justice is statutory as well
constitutional.

27. Accordingly, it shall not be
open to the respondents to proceed in a
manner different than what has been
provided
in
regulation
61
of
the
Regulations provided for the disciplinary
proceedings.

28. The principle of 'judicia
Posteriora sunt' in lege fortiora i.e.
requirement to show de facto prejudice
shall not be applicable when the statute
itself
provides
certain
procedures
regulating the disciplinary proceeding,
Rules,
regulations
and
mode
of
disciplinary proceeding provided under
the statute should be followed in true
sense. Hence, the submission made by
Sri Sudeep Seth, learned counsel for the
respondent seems to be not correct.

29. In all, what has been stated
herein above, the impugned order seems
to be violative of not only principle of
natural
justice
but
also
statutory
provisions
(supra)
regulating
the
disciplinary proceedings.

30. The writ petition is liable to be
and is hereby allowed. A writ in the
nature of certiorari is issued quashing the
impugned order dated 24th August,
2009, as contained in Annexure-1 to the
writ petition with consequential benefit.
The petitioner will be restored in service
and be paid salary forthwith. However
we agree with the submission made by
the respondents' counsel and provide that
it shall be open for the respondents to
take work or not, from the petitioner but
he be paid salary. So far as the back
wages is concerned, it shall be subject to
fresh inquiry, if any, conducted by the
respondents. In case the respondents take
a decision to hold fresh inquiry, then that
shall
be
held
expeditiously
and
preferably within a period of six months
from today. Parties to communicate
judgment forthwith.

31. Writ petition is allowed
accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.01.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.

Contempt No. 1777 of 2010

Kalloo and others

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Satti Din

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
P.V. Chaudhary

Counsel for the Respondent:
................

Contempts of Courts Act 1972- Section
12-status Quo order-passed in second
appeal-under order 39 Rule 1 complete
procedure and consequences provided
under order XXXIX R.2-itself-contempt
alleging violation of status quo orderheld-not
maintainable
legal
aspect
dismissed.

Held: Para 15

For the foregoing reasons, the present
contempt petition filed by the applicants
under Section 12 of the Contempt
Court's Act for alleged non-compliance of
the
interim
order/injunction
order
granted by this Court in pending second
appeal is not maintainable and liable to
be dismissed.