# Govind Narayan Shukla v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 76
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-11-29
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25950 of 2003
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/govind-narayan-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40385
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava
S.C.

U.P. Cooperation Societies Employees'
Service Regulation, 1975-Reg. 84 (1) (c)
to
(g),
87-Dismissal-Appointment
of
petitioner as clerk in District Cooperation
Federation in 1972-In 2002 he was
instructed
to
run
Wheat
Purchase
Centre-on certain irregularities being
found, order of dismissal passed by
Incharge
Secretary-Writ
against-held,
admittedly, order of dismissal from
service was passed under Regs. 84(1)
(e) to (g)-as such in absence of prior
concurrence of Board, held, no such
order could have been passed under Reg.
87 of 1975 Regulations-Since impugned
order
was
passed
in
violation
of
Regulations, same was liable to be set
aside.

Held: Para 4

Before going into the grounds raised
which
are
based
on
factual
controversies, I shall first consider this
case on its legal aspects. In the writ
petition a clear assertion has been made
that before passing of the impugned
order
of
dismissal
the
respondentauthorities had not obtained the prior
concurrence of the Board. There is no
specific denial of this assertion in the
counter affidavit. Admittedly the order of
dismissal from service has been passed
under Regulation 84 (1) (e) to (g) and as
such
in
the
absence
of
the
prior
concurrence of the Board no such order
could have been passed as provided
under
Regulation
87
of
1975
Regulations. Thus, this writ petition
deserves to be allowed only on this
ground as the order has been passed in
violation
of
the
provisions
of
the
Regulations.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
76
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25950 of 2003

Govind Narayan Shukla
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava
S.C.

U.P. Cooperation Societies Employees'
Service Regulation, 1975-Reg. 84 (1) (c)
to
(g),
87-Dismissal-Appointment
of
petitioner as clerk in District Cooperation
Federation in 1972-In 2002 he was
instructed
to
run
Wheat
Purchase
Centre-on certain irregularities being
found, order of dismissal passed by
Incharge
Secretary-Writ
against-held,
admittedly, order of dismissal from
service was passed under Regs. 84(1)
(e) to (g)-as such in absence of prior
concurrence of Board, held, no such
order could have been passed under Reg.
87 of 1975 Regulations-Since impugned
order
was
passed
in
violation
of
Regulations, same was liable to be set
aside.

Held: Para 4

Before going into the grounds raised
which
are
based
on
factual
controversies, I shall first consider this
case on its legal aspects. In the writ
petition a clear assertion has been made
that before passing of the impugned
order
of
dismissal
the
respondentauthorities had not obtained the prior
concurrence of the Board. There is no
specific denial of this assertion in the
counter affidavit. Admittedly the order of
dismissal from service has been passed
under Regulation 84 (1) (e) to (g) and as
such
in
the
absence
of
the
prior
concurrence of the Board no such order
could have been passed as provided
under
Regulation
87
of
1975
Regulations. Thus, this writ petition
deserves to be allowed only on this
ground as the order has been passed in
violation
of
the
provisions
of
the
Regulations.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. The petitioner was appointed as a
Clerk
in
the
District
Cooperative
Federation Ltd., Kanpur Nagar in the year
1972. Thereafter in the year 2002 he was
instructed to run Wheat Purchase Centre
at Rampur in Kanpur Nagar. On certain
irregularities having been found in the
working of the petitioner, the respondent
No. 5, Sushil Kumar Tiwari, who was the
Incharge
Secretary
of
the
District
Cooperative Federation Ltd., Kanpur
Nagar, passed order of dismissal of the
petitioner on 20.5.2003. Aggrieved by the
said order the petitioner has filed this writ
petition for quashing the dismissal order
dated 20.5.2003 as well as for a direction
to the respondents to treat the petitioner in
service and pay him his salary month by
month and also arrears of salary with
effect from 1.1.1993.

2. I have heard Sri M.P.Gupta,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
petitioner
and
Sri
Ashok
Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for
the
contesting
respondent-District
Cooperative Federation and have perused
the record.

3. The main grounds raised by the
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Govind Narayan Shukla V. State of U.P. and others
77
challenging the impugned order can be
summarized as under:-

(i) the impugned order has been
passed by respondent No. 5 as Incharge
Secretary
of
the
Federation.
The
Respondent no.5 having been appointed
as Incharge Secretary on 28.2.2002, as per
Rule 127 of the U.P. Cooperative
Societies
Rules,
1968
read
with
Regulation 5 of the U.P. Cooperative
Societies
Employees'
Service
Regulations, 1975, on expiry of the period
of six months, i.e. on 28.8.2002, the said
respondent No. 5 ceased to remain as
Incharge Secretary and thus the impugned
order passed by him on 20.5.2003 was
without jurisdiction.

(ii) the respondent No. 6 not being an
employee of the Federation (as he was an
Advocate) was not competent to be
appointed as enquiry officer. Further, in
view of the fact that the petitioner had
raised
objections
regarding
his
impartiality in conducting the enquiry, he
ought to have been changed. As such the
entire enquiry proceedings, on the basis of
which the impugned order has been
passed, was bad in law.

(iii) the Committee of Management
of the District Cooperative Federation
Ltd. was the appointing authority of the
petitioner and as such it was only by the
resolution
of
the
Committee
of
Management that the petitioner could
have been dismissed from service and not
by the order of the Incharge Secretary;
and

(iv) under Regulation 87 of the
Regulations of 1975, prior concurrence of
respondent No. 2 U.P. Cooperative
Institutional Service Board ought to have
been obtained before passing of the
dismissal order and in the absence of the
same, the impugned order is liable to be
set aside.

4. Before going into the grounds
raised which are based on factual
controversies, I shall first consider this
case on its legal aspects. In the writ
petition a clear assertion has been made
that before passing of the impugned order
of dismissal the respondent-authorities
had not obtained the prior concurrence of
the Board. There is no specific denial of
this assertion in the counter affidavit.
Admittedly the order of dismissal from
service has been passed under Regulation
84 (1) (e) to (g) and as such in the absence
of the prior concurrence of the Board no
such order could have been passed as
provided under Regulation 87 of 1975
Regulations. Thus, this writ petition
deserves to be allowed only on this
ground as the order has been passed in
violation of the provisions of the
Regulations.

5. There is an assertion in the writ
petition that there was no resolution by
the Committee of Management before
passing of the impugned order. In the
counter affidavit, although there is denial
of this fact but no resolution of the
Committee of Management has been
filed. Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
contesting respondent has stated that such
resolution had been passed on 17.5.2003
but due to inadvertence could not be
placed on record alongwith the counter
affidavit. Be that as it may, since I have
already held that the impugned order
could not have been passed without prior
concurrence of the Board, which had not
been obtained in the present case, I am
not inclined to go into this question of fact
as to whether the resolution of the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
78
Committee of Management had been
actually passed or not. This writ petition
deserves to be allowed only on the
aforesaid
ground
itself
that
prior
concurrence of the Board had not been
obtained before the passing of the
dismissal order.

6. In view of the statement made by
Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned
counsel for the contesting respondent that
since the writ petition is being allowed on
technical
ground,
the
respondentauthorities may be permitted to initiate de
novo proceeding against the petitioner
and fresh enquiry may be permitted to be
conducted in accordance with law on the
basis of which suitable order may be
passed, I am not inclined to go into the
question as to whether the Enquiry
Officer was properly appointed or not.

7. This writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed. The impugned order dated
20.5.2003 is quashed. The petitioner shall
be entitled to all consequential benefits.
He shall be reinstated in service and be
paid his salary alongwith arrears of salary
to which he may be found entitled to
under law.

8. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances
of
this
case,
if
the
Respondent-Federation is so advised, it
shall be open to them to take suitable
action in accordance with law only after
conducting fresh enquiry as per the
applicable Rules and Regulations, in
which the petitioner shall be permitted to
participate, and the Federation may pass
appropriate fresh orders on the basis of
the said enquiry report.
Petition Allowed.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.11.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8060 of 1999

Navin Chandra

...Petitioner
Versus
Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etah and others.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri L.N. Misra
Sri Anil Bhushan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anupam Shukla
Sri P.K. Sharma
S.C.

U.P. Junior High School (Payment of
Salary to Teachers and other Employees
Act, 1978-Appoint of petitioner Assistant
Teacher on vacancy caused by removal
of Smt. Sudha Yadav-Salary withheld on
objection by Accounts officer-matter
referred to D.E. (Basic)-Rejection of
petitioner's claim for payment of salary
by Director of Education (Basic) on
ground that under High Courts order one
Ram Prakash was entitled to be adjusted
against vacancy caused one termination
of services of Smt. Sudha Yadav-Writ
against-held, impugned orders passed by
D.E. (Basic) and Basic Shiksha Adhikari
are
illegal
as
they
are
based
on
misconception of fact that Sri Ram
Prakash was liable to adjusted against
vacancy caused due to removal of Smt.
Susha Yadav-held, said vacancy is a
independent vacancy-It has nothing to
do with payment of salary to Sri Ram
Prakash, nor right of petitioner can be
defected on ground that Ram Prakash
should be adjusted against vacancy
caused on removal of Sudha Yadav-
impugned order quashed.