# Hari Nath Singh Yadav v. The Administrator/Chairman, P. C.F. and others

- **Citation:** (2000) 2 ILRA 35
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hari-nath-singh-yadav-v-the-administrator-chairman-p-c-f-and-others-39444
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

2All] Hari Nath Singh Yadav V. The Administrator/Chairman, P. C.F. and others
35
and the Court might thereupon enlarge the
time according to any necessity which might
arise, where it was proper that they should do
so." The High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution has the power not only to issue
prerogative writs but it can also issue such
orders or directions as may be deemed fit and
proper in the ends of justice for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III
and "for any other purpose." In the fact
situation of the case discussed above, the
learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was
justified in giving time to the respondent cold
storage to make necessary deposits and avoid
confirmation of the auction sale. The
appellant suffered no loss since he had
acquired no vested right to get the auction sale
confirmed. The auction sale suffered from
serious
infirmities
and
irregularities
in
conduct thereof. We are, therefore, not
inclined to interfere with the order passed by
the learned Single Judge.

9. The appeal fails and is dismissed
without there being any order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5<-
7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5<-

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 12 RI

+DUL 1DWK 6LQJK <DGDY
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH $GPLQLVWUDWRU&KDLUPDQ 3URYLQFLDO &R
RSHUDWLYH )HGHUDWLRQ RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL 73 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 3UDGHHS &KDQGUD
$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD 7KH
UHOHYDQW GRFXPHQWV ZKLFK ZHUH UHIHUUHG WR
LQ WKH FKDUJH VKHHW DQG ZKLFK ZHUH UHOLHG RQ
E\ WKH LQTXLU\ RIILFHU ZHUH QRW VXSSOLHG WR
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU
1RZ
VXSSO\
RI
WKHVH
GRFXPHQWV ZDV QRW GHQLHG LQ WKH FRXQWHU
DIILGDYLW 7KH LPSXJQHG RUGHU LV TXDVKHG WKH
GRFXPHQWV UHIHUUHG LQ WKH FKDUJH VKHHW KDYH
WR EH VXSSOLHG WR WKH SHWLWLRQHU
+HOG
7KH UHSO\ WR WKH UHOHYDQW SDUDJUDSKV LQ WKH
ZULW
SHWLWLRQ
DOOHJLQJ
WKDW
WKH
UHOHYDQW
GRFXPHQWV UHIHUUHG WR LQ WKH FKDUJH
VKHHW
ZHUH QRW VXSSOLHG WR KLP LV FRQWDLQHG LQ
SDUDJUDSK RI WKH FRXQWHU DIILGDYLW EXW
WKLV
SDUDJUDSK
GRHV
QRW
GLVSXWH
WKH
DOOHJDWLRQ WKDW WKH FRSLHV RI WKH DIRUHVDLG
GRFXPHQWV
ZHUH
QRW
VXSSOLHG
WR
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU 7KLV DVVHUWLRQ RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU
WKDW WKH FRSLHV RI WKH UHOHYDQW GRFXPHQWV
UHIHUUHG WR LQ WKH FKDUJH VKHHW ZHUH QRW
VXSSOLHG
WR
KLP
KDV
QRW
EHHQ
VHULRXVO\
GLVSXWHG E\ WKH UHVSRQGHQW
&DVH UHIHUUHG ±$,5 6&S 3DUD

By the Court
1. Heard Learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is challenging the
impugned order dated 8.6.1999 Annexure 27
to the writ petition by which his service had
been terminated and recovery has been
ordered against him. The petitioner was an
employee of the U.P. Co-operative Federation
having been appointed on 21.12.1966 as
Assistant Accountant and thereafter he was
promoted in June 1981 as superintendent. In
1989 he was posted as District Manger of the
Federation at Etah when he was suspended
but the suspension order was stayed by the
High Court on 7.5.1990 as stated in paragraph
5 of the writ petition. Thereafter an enquiry
was held and his service was terminated.
Hence this petition.

3. Several ground have been taken by the
petitioner in this petition but it is not
necessary for us to go into all of them as we
are of the opinion that this petition deserves to
be allowed on one ground alone.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

36
State of U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Lal A.I.R 1998
SC 3038 in which it has been held that the
relevant documents which are referred to in
the charge sheet and which are relied on by
the enquiry officer have to be supplied to the
charge-sheeted
employee.
In
paragraphs
14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23 and 69 of the
writ petition it has been contended that copies
of the documents referred to in the charge
sheet were not supplied to the petitioner
despite his requests. A perusal of the charge
sheet, copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ
petition, shows that a large number of
documents have been referred to therein.
Hence in view of the aforesaid decision of the
Supreme Court copies of these documents
should have been supplied to the petitioner,
but it appears that despite his repeated
requests they were not supplied to him.

5. The reply to the relevant paragraphs in
the writ petition alleging that the relevant
documents referred to in the charge sheet
were not supplied to him is contained in
paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, but this
paragraph does not dispute the allegation that
the copies of the aforesaid documents were
not supplied to the petitioner. This assertion
of the petitioner that the copies of the relevant
documents referred to in the charge sheet
were not supplied to him has not been
seriously disputed by the respondent.

6. Hence in view of the decision of the
Supreme
Court
in
state of U.P. Vs.
Shatrughan Lal (Supra) this writ petition has
to be allowed The writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 8.6.1999 is
quashed. However, it is open to the authority
concerned to hold a fresh enquiry and pass a
fresh order after gibing opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner in accordance with law.

Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 0$5&+
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 0$5&+
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

0DVKRRT $KPDG
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
0DQDJHU3HUVRQDO ,QGXVWULDO 5HODWLRQV
%3& /WG 1DLQL $OODKDEDG «5HVSRQGHQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL 7HM 3UDWDS 6LQJK
6UL $. 6ULYDVWDYD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
6&
6UL 3. 0XNKHUMHH

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

7UDQVIHU RI FODVV ,,, HPSOR\HH WUDQVIHUUHG
IURP
$OODKDEDG
WR
%RPED\
3ULQFLSOH
RI
H[LJHQF\ FDQ QRW EH FRQVLGHUHG LVRODWLRQ
3HWLWLRQHU
GRHV
QRW
RSW
IRU
YROXQWDULO\
WUDQVIHU
VFKHPH
:KLFK
UHVXOWHG
WKH
LPSXJQHG RUGHU WR JHW ULG RI KLP 1R OHWWHU
RU FRQWUDFW FDQ RYHUULGH $UWLFOH RI WKH
&RQVWLWXWLRQ
+HOG
,W KDV EHHQ PHQWLRQHG LQ WKH SHWLWLRQHU¶V
DSSRLQWPHQW
OHWWHU
WKDW
KH
FDQ
EH
WUDQVIHUUHG
WR
WKH
EUD
FKHV
RI
WKH
FRUSRUDWLRQ EXW VDLG FODXVH FDQQRW RYHUULGH
$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ ,Q P\ RSLQLRQ
WKH VWDWHPHQW LQ WKH DIRUHVDLG OHWWHU WKDW WKH
SHWLWLRQHU FDQ EH WUDQVIHUUHG WR WKH EUDQFKHV
RI WKH FRUSRUDWLRQ FDQQRW PHDQ WKDW WKH
FRUSRUDWLRQ FDQ DFW DUELWUDULO\ LQ WKH PDWWHU
1R OHWWHU RU FRQWUDFW FDQ RYHUULGH $UWLFOH
RI
WKH
&RQVWLWXWLRQ
7KH
UHVSRQGHQW
FRUSRUDWLRQ LV DQ LQV WUXPHQWDOLW\ RI WKH
6WDWH DQG KHQFH LWV DFWLRQ LV VXEMHFW WR
$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ SDUD
$,5 6&

By the Court

1. This writ petition has been filed against
the impugned transfer order dated 10.10.1994.
Annexure
1
to
the
writ
petition.