# Nagendra Singh v. Board of Directors, Deoria Kasaya Sahkari Bank and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 627
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-02-28
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7739 of 2004
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nagendra-singh-v-board-of-directors-deoria-kasaya-sahkari-bank-and-others-40625
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226alternative
remedy-petitioner-Branch
Manager-facing disciplinary proceeding
for
certain
financial
irregularitiesultimately-after
conclusion
of
disciplinary
proceeding-show
cause
notice for proposed punishment for
stoppage of two annual increments with
permanent effect-petition filed-held-in
view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
decision
in
Hindustan
Steel
Works
Corporation-petitioner
has
statutory
right to appeal before Registrar under
section 86 of U.P. Cooperative Services
Employees Regulations, 1975-writ not
maintainable.
Held: Para 11 and 12

From the Regulation it is apparent that
the relief of both the punishments
awarded to the petitioner is provided by
way of statutory appeal, which has not
been exhausted by the petitioner.

It is the consistent view of Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
that
wherever
an
alternate remedy is available it should
not be bye-passed and the petitioner has
to approach this Court after availing
alternate remedy. Reference in this
regard may be made to Hindustan Steel
Works Construction Ltd., and another Vs.
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd.,
Employees Union (2005) 6 SCC-725 and
U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S.
Pandey and another, (2005) 107 FLR

## Text

2 All] Nagendra Singh V. Board of Directors, Deoria Kasaya Sahkari Bank and others
627
proceeding instituted or about to be
instituted in a Court. Section 148A of the
C.P.C. will be applicable to the suits or
proceedings governed by the C.P.C. and
not in the other proceedings not governed
by the C.P.C.

7. I have also carefully gone through
Rule 5 of Chapter XXII of The Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952, which is being
reproduced below:-

"Lodging of Caveat.-(1) Where an
application is expected to be made or has
been made, any person claiming the right
to oppose such an application, may, either
personally or through his counsel, lodge a
caveat in the Court in respect thereof.

(2) The caveator shall serve a notice
of
the
caveat
by
registered
post,
acknowledgment due, on the person by
whom the application is expected to be
made and submit proof of service in
Court.

(3) After the caveat has been lodged
and the notice thereof has been served on
the applicant's counsel, the applicant shall
forthwith furnish to the caveator or his
counsel, at the caveator's expense, with a
copy of the application as well as any
miscellaneous application made therein
for interim relief.

(4) Where a caveat has been lodged
and notice thereof has been served the
applicant shall when presenting the
application in Court, furnish proof of
having given prior notice in writing to the
caveator's counsel of the date on which
the
application
is
proposed
to
be
presented."

8. From perusal of the provisions of
Rule 5 of Chapter XXII of The Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952, this Court is of
the considered view that once a Caveat is
filed
in
a
writ
petition
or
other
proceedings not governed by the C.P.C.,
the Stamp Reporter is bound to make a
report about filing of the Caveat. As
Section 148A of the C.P.C. will not be
applicable to the writ petitions, the Stamp
Reporter is not competent to ignore the
Caveat filed in writ petitions on the
ground that 90 days have expired.

9. Accordingly, I hold that Stamp
Reporter on the objection raised by
petitioner's counsel wrongly scored out
the report which was rightly made earlier
about filing of the Caveat by the
Caveator's counsel.

10. Stamp Reporter shall take care
of this in future while reporting Caveat
filed in the writ petitions.

11. Registrar General of the Court is
directed to take appropriate steps for
compliance of this order.

As prayed, put up day after tomorrow for
admission.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.02.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7739 of 2004

Nagendra Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Directors, Deoria-Kasaya Zila
Sahkari
Bank
Limited,
Head
OfficeDeoria,
District
Deoria
through
its
Chairman and others
 ...Respondents
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.A. Gilan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.N. Mishra

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226alternative
remedy-petitioner-Branch
Manager-facing disciplinary proceeding
for
certain
financial
irregularitiesultimately-after
conclusion
of
disciplinary
proceeding-show
cause
notice for proposed punishment for
stoppage of two annual increments with
permanent effect-petition filed-held-in
view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
decision
in
Hindustan
Steel
Works
Corporation-petitioner
has
statutory
right to appeal before Registrar under
section 86 of U.P. Cooperative Services
Employees Regulations, 1975-writ not
maintainable.
Held: Para 11 and 12

From the Regulation it is apparent that
the relief of both the punishments
awarded to the petitioner is provided by
way of statutory appeal, which has not
been exhausted by the petitioner.

It is the consistent view of Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
that
wherever
an
alternate remedy is available it should
not be bye-passed and the petitioner has
to approach this Court after availing
alternate remedy. Reference in this
regard may be made to Hindustan Steel
Works Construction Ltd., and another Vs.
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd.,
Employees Union (2005) 6 SCC-725 and
U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S.
Pandey and another, (2005) 107 FLR
729.
Case law discussed:
2005 (6) SCC-725
2005 FLR (107) 729

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
The petitioner was appointed as
Branch Manager at Branch Rudrapur of
Deoria-Kasaya,
Zila
Sahkari
Bank
Limited.

2. It is alleged that on 13.11.2000
and 20.3.2001 two new accounts were
opened when the petitioner was on field
duty and was not present in the bank.
When the balance sheet was being
prepared it was came into light that
Rs.46,000/-
and
Rs.33,000/-
were
fraudulently withdrawn from the bank
through the aforesaid two new accounts
without depositing any money.

3. On 26.10.2002 when the
petitioner came to know about the
aforesaid fact, he made a complaint to the
Higher authorities. Sri Shyam Nawal
Yadav, Senior Manager was appointed to
conduct a preliminary enquiry and report
of preliminary enquiry dated 26.10.2002
was submitted. On the direction of the
superior officers, the petitioner made a
complaint dated 29.10.2002 to the police
along
with
Inquiry
report
dated
26.10.2002 and FIR was lodged on
2.11.2002.

4. Thereafter the respondents vide
order dated 15.11.2002 asked 3 persons
Arvind Kumar Singh, Rajendra Prasad
and the petitioner to deposit certain
amount. The petitioner protested and was
served
with
a
charge
sheet
dated
21.12.2002 to which he submitted reply.

5. It is also alleged that again a
supplementary
chargesheet
dated
1.2.2003 was served on the petitioner to
which he again submitted reply on
21.2.2003. Enquiry Officer was appointed
in the matter who after conducting the
enquiry
submitted
his
report
dated
2 All] Nagendra Singh V. Board of Directors, Deoria Kasaya Sahkari Bank and others
629
25/26.6.2003. A show cause notice was
served upon the petitioner on 26.8.2003
proposing for recovery of Rs. 1,27,427.00
with interest thereon and stoppage of one
increment with permanent effect. The
petitioner submitted his reply to the
aforesaid
show
cause
notice
on
30.10.2003 and by order dated 24.1.2004
the petitioner was reinstated in service by
awarding punishments proposed above in
the show cause notice.

6. Aggrieved by the order dated
30.10.2003 this writ petition has been
filed for the following reliefs:-

(i) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated
24.1.2004 passed by the respondents
(Annexure-12 to the writ petition);
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents not to recover any
amount from the petitioner on the
basis of impugned order dated
24.1.2004;
(iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to treat the petitioner
reinstated with all full pay, wages
and other financial and promotional
benefits to which the petitioner is
entitled in accordance with law;
(iv) To issue any other writ, order or
direction as this Court may deem fit
and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case; and
(v) To issue award the cost of the
petition to the petitioner.

7. A preliminary objection has been
raised by Sri K.N. Mishra, counsel for the
respondents that the terms and conditions
of the employees of the respondents-Cooperative Bank are governed by the U.P.
Co-operative
Service
Employees
Regulations, 1975. He further submits
that the petitioner has an efficacious and
alternative remedy of filing an appeal
under Regulation 84(1(d) of the aforesaid
Regulations which has not been exhausted
by the petitioner.

8. It is submitted that Regulation 84
of
the
U.P.
Co-operative
Service
Employees Regulations, 1975 provides
for penalty. Regulation 84(1)(d) also
provides the punishment of recovery from
the pay or security deposit to compensate
in whole or in part for any pecuniary loss
caused to the Co-operative Society by the
employee. It is further stated the aforesaid
regulation also provides that if any
employee is aggrieved by the order of the
competent authority regarding recovery of
loss from his pay under orders of the
Committee of Management, the employee
has an alternative remedy to challenge the
validity of the aforesaid order before the
Registrar, Co-operative Societies U.P.
under
Rule
86
of
the
aforesaid
Regulations, 1975.

9. The counsel for the respondents
further submits that the petitioner has
been punished for stoppage of one
increment
by
the
Committee
of
Management which is also appealable
before the U.P. Co-operative Institutional
Service Board by way of appeal under
Regulation 86 and other punishment of
pecuninary loss from the pay is also
appealable before the Registrar, hence the
punishment imposed on the petitioner is
appealable before the Registrar and the
Board as such the writ petition is liable to
be dismissed on the ground of alternative
remedy of filing statutory appeal as
provided in Service Regulations.
630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
10. Regulations 84 (i)(d) and 86 of
the aforesaid Regulations, 1975 are as
under:-

"84-Penalties:- (i) Without prejudice
to the provisions contained in any other
regulation, an employee who commits a
breach of duty enjoined upon him or has
been convicted for criminal offence or an
offence under Section 103 of the Act or
does
anything
prohibited
by
these
regulations shall be liable to be punished
by any one of the following penalties-

------------
------------
------------
(d) recovery from pay or security deposit
to compensate in whole or in part for any
pecuniary loss caused to the Co-operative
society by the employee's conduct.

------------
------------
------------

86-Appeal- Orders imposing penalty
under sub-clauses (a) to (d) of clause (1)
of Regulation no. 84 shall be appleable to
the authorities as mentioned in Appendix
'D'."

11. From the Regulation it is
apparent that the relief of both the
punishments awarded to the petitioner is
provided by way of statutory appeal,
which has not been exhausted by the
petitioner.

12. It is the consistent view of
Hon'ble Supreme Court that wherever an
alternate remedy is available it should not
be bye-passed and the petitioner has to
approach
this
Court
after
availing
alternate remedy. Reference in this regard
may be made to Hindustan Steel Works
Construction Ltd., and another Vs.
Hindustan Steel Works Construction
Ltd., Employees Union (2005) 6 SCC725 and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd.
Vs. R.S. Pandey and another, (2005)
107 FLR 729.

13. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petition is dismissed on the ground of
alternative remedy.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.

Special Appeal No. 1426 of 2005

District Basic Education Officer, Etah and
another

...Appellants
Versus
Dhananjai kumar Shukla and another

...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri K. Shahi

Counsel for the Respondents:

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Practice
of
Procedure-Writ
Petition-decided
finally-without
waiting
for
counter
affidavit-despite
of
receiving
the
Notices-Counter affidavit not filed for a
long
period
of
6
years-after
the
amendment of C.P.C. in the year 2002Counter affidavit is to be filed within 30
days positively which can be extended in
exceptional cases-Court can not permit
to take the benefit of his own wrong
committed by the appellant-held-Single
Judge rightly decided the case on the
basis of averment made in writ petition.

Held: Para 7 and 9