# Rakesh Chandra Jauhari v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 223
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-11
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 17213 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-chandra-jauhari-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51200
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Service Law - UP Cooperative Dairy
Federation
Employees
Service
Regulations, 2010 - Regs. 85 & 86 -
Disciplinary proceeding - Major penalty -
Reduction to the basic pay scale in
perpetuity - No enquiry was conducted -
Admittedly no witnesses were examined
by the Establishment and the Inquiry
Officer opined merely on the basis of idle
papers
-
Effect
-
Held,
the
entire
approach of the respondents is one of
regarding
the
charges
as
proof
of
themselves
with
burden
upon
the
petitioner, the charge-sheeted employee,
to dispel the charge. This approach of the
respondents is fundamentally flawed and
vitiates the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
(Para 10 and 11)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Rakesh Chandra Jauhari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
223
did not find the allegations true.
Still, the petitioner, Somesh Tiwari, was
transferred from Bhopal to Shillong. There
are then very detailed facts, which may not
be of much relevance, but the principle, on
which the event turned before their
Lordships in Somesh Tiwari, is expressed
in the following words:

 "16. Indisputably an order of
transfer is an administrative order. There
cannot be any doubt whatsoever that
transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of
service should not be interfered with, save
in cases where inter alia mala fide on the
part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is
of two kinds-one malice in fact and the
second malice in law. The order in question
would attract the principle of malice in law
as it was not based on any factor germane
for passing an order of transfer and based
on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the
allegations made against the appellant in
the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to
say that the employer is entitled to pass an
order
of
transfer
in
administrative
exigencies but it is another thing to say that
the order of transfer is passed by way of or
in lieu of punishment. When an order of
transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the
same is liable to be set aside being wholly
illegal.

17. An enquiry was initiated
against the appellant in terms of the
allegations contained in an anonymous
letter. Having regard to the directives of the
Central Vigilance Commission, no enquiry
could have been initiated against him but it
is beyond any doubt or dispute that in the
said enquiry, the allegations were found to
be untrue. Despite the same not only an
order of transfer was passed but to a
station, which, according to the respondents
themselves, was "harsh".

13. In view of what we have held
hereinabove, the impugned transfer order
cannot be sustained.

14. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
transfer order dated 09.10.2024 passed by
the Chief Engineer, District Division-II,
Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited,
Varanasi is hereby quashed. The petitioner
shall be permitted to join at the station
where he was serving immediately before
the order impugned dated 09.10.2024
forthwith and paid salary regularly.

15. There shall be no order as to
costs.

16. Let this order be communicated
to the Chief Engineer, District Division-II,
Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited,
Varanasi through the learned Civil Judge
(Sr. Div.), Varanasi by the Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 223
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 17213 of 2024

Rakesh Chandra Jauhari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amit Kumar, Ashutosh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ganesh Datt Mishra, C.S.C.
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Service Law - UP Cooperative Dairy
Federation
Employees
Service
Regulations, 2010 - Regs. 85 & 86 -
Disciplinary proceeding - Major penalty -
Reduction to the basic pay scale in
perpetuity - No enquiry was conducted -
Admittedly no witnesses were examined
by the Establishment and the Inquiry
Officer opined merely on the basis of idle
papers
-
Effect
-
Held,
the
entire
approach of the respondents is one of
regarding
the
charges
as
proof
of
themselves
with
burden
upon
the
petitioner, the charge-sheeted employee,
to dispel the charge. This approach of the
respondents is fundamentally flawed and
vitiates the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
(Para 10 and 11)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs Saroj Kumar
Sinha; (2010) 2 SCC 772

2. Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank &
ors.; (2009) 2 SCC 570

3. St. of Uttaranchal & ors. Vs Kharak Singh;
(2008) 8 SCC 236

4. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Kishori Lal & anr.; 2018
(9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB)

5. Smt. Karuna Jaiswal Vs St. of U.P.; 2018 (9)
ADJ 107 (DB) (LB)

6. St. of U.P. Vs Aditya Prasad Srivastava &
anr.; 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB) (LB)

7. Satyendra Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr.; 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3325

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed against
an order of the Chief General Manager,
Pradeshik
Cooperative
Dairy
Federation
Limited, Lucknow dated 10.03.2016, punishing
the petitioner with reduction to his basic scale,
after disciplinary proceedings.
2. The petitioner is a retired employee
of the Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation
(for
short,
'PCDF'),
which
is
a
State
Government undertaking, funded and supported
by the Government in the Ministry of Dairy
Development. The petitioner appears to have
joined the PCDF in the year 1985 on the post of
an Accounts Assistant at District Varanasi as a
regular employee. He put in more than thirty
years'
service
before
superannuating
on
31.08.2017. At the time of his retirement, he
was posted as an Accounts Assistant with the
Cattle Feed Factory, PCDF, Ram Nagar,
Varanasi. The petitioner says that he had an
unblemished
career
until
the
fateful
proceedings. Disciplinary proceedings were
instituted against the petitioner on the 12th of
August, 2013. He was suspended from service
pending inquiry. An Inquiry Officer was
appointed. The Inquiry Officer served the
petitioner with a charge"sheet, carrying a total
of seven charges. The charge"sheet is one dated
09.11.2013 and comes up with allegations
regarding
financial
irregularities
in
the
organization, issuing a cheque on 20.06.2013,
drawing on a bank account, where there were
insufficient funds, as well as a charge about
forging the signatures of the General Manager,
Dairy Production Federation, Raibareli to pay
off dues etc., leading to the petitioner's integrity
not being certified and two increments withheld
for two years.

3. The petitioner submitted a reply to
the charge"sheet. He denied the charges,
coming up with defence pleas. The Inquiry
Officer, the petitioner alleges, without holding
an
inquiry
in
accordance
with
salutary
procedure, submitted a report dated 30.01.2015,
holding the charges proved. Amongst others, it
is averred that no oral inquiry was held in the
sense that no evidence of witnesses for the
establishment was recorded in support of the
charges. It is also alleged that the mandatory
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative
Dairy
Federation
Employees
Service
Regulations, 2010 (for short, 'the Regulations of
2010') were observed in breach, as also the
Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Employees
12 All. Rakesh Chandra Jauhari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
225
Service Regulations, 1985 (for short, 'the
Regulations of 1985').

4. The petitioner was served with a
show cause notice dated 16.03.2015, which he
answered by means of his reply dated
06.05.2015. The Chief General Manager, PCDF
by his order dated 10.03.2016 proceeded to
punish the petitioner, reducing him to the basic
scale. For the period of suspension, he was
denied salary, except the subsistence allowance,
that he had received, but granted continuity in
service. The petitioner says that due to incorrect
advice,
he
submitted
a
representation/
departmental appeal to the Managing Director,
PCDF Limited, Lucknow, which does not lie
for the class of penalty awarded to him under
Regulation 88 read with Regulation 85(1) of the
Regulations of 2010. It is also urged that the
order impugned could not have been passed by
the Chief General Manager, the Appointing
Authority, without the prior approval of the
Registrar, Cooperative Societies in view of the
embargo carried in Regulation 88 of the
Regulations of 2010.

5. A notice of motion was issued on
06.11.2024, in answer to which a counter
affidavit was filed on 27.11.2024. This counter
affidavit was filed on behalf of the Chief
General Manager, PCDF by the Managing
Director.

6. Parties having exchanged affidavits,
the petition was admitted to hearing, which
proceeded forthwith. Orders were reserved.

7. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Tripathi,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.D.
Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.2 and Mr. S.C. Upadhyay,
learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent No. 1.

8. Upon hearing learned Counsel for
the parties, what is evident is that the penalty
imposed is one of reduction to the basic pay
scale in perpetuity. This is a penalty, which
under the Regulations of 2010 cannot be
imposed upon an employee of the PCDF,
without the issue of a charge"sheet and holding
disciplinary proceedings. Apparently, this is a
major penalty. In order to appreciate the nature
of penalties and their classification, according
to gravity, and a fortiori the procedure to be
adopted and the remedies of appeal against
various classes of penalties available to various
Appellate
Authorities,
the
provisions
of
Regulations 85"91 may be quoted with profit:

"85. Penalties." (1) 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 anyone of the following
penalties"

(a) censure,
(b) withholding of increment,
(c) fine on an employee of
Category IV (Peon, Chaukidar etc.),
(d) withhold pay whole or part
for the suspension period,
 (e) recovery from pay or security
deposit to compensate in whole or in part for
any pecuniary loss caused to the institution by
the employee's conduct,
(f) reduction in rank or grade
held substantively by the employee,
(g) removal from service, or
(h) dismissal from service.
 (2) It shall be unlawful to impose
more than one penalty. Copy of order of the
punishment shall invariably be given to the
employee concerned and entry to this effect
shall be made in the service record of the
employee.
 (3) No penalty except censure shall
be imposed unless a show cause notice has been
given to the employee and he has either failed
to reply within the specified time or his reply
has been found to be unsatisfactory by the
punishing authority.
 (4)(a) The charge"sheeted employee
shall be awarded punishment by the appropriate
authority according to the seriousness of the
offence:
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 Provided that no penalty under
sub"clause (e), (f) or (h) of clause (1) shall be
imposed without recourse to disciplinary
proceedings.
 (b) No employee shall be removed or
dismissed by an authority other than by which
he was appointed unless the appointing
authority has made prior delegation of such
authority to such other person or authority in
writing.
 (5) The appointing authority or
person authorized by him while passing orders
for stoppage of increments shall state the period
for which it is stopped and whether it shall have
effect of postponing future increments or
promotion.
 86. Disciplinary proceedings.- (1)
The
disciplinary
proceedings
against
an
employee shall be conducted by the Inquiry
Officer with due observance of the principles of
natural justice for which it shall be necessary
that"
 (a) the employee shall be served with
a charge sheet containing specific charge 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 years;
 (b) such an employee shall also be
given an opportunity to produce at his own cost
or to cross examine witnesses to his defence
and shall also be given an opportunity of being
heard in person, if he so desires;
 (c) if no explanation in respect of
charge"sheet is received or the explanation
submitted is unsatisfactory, the competent
authority
may
award
him
appropriate
punishment considered necessary.
 (2)(a)
Where
an
employee
is
dismissed or removed from service on the
ground of conduct which has led to his
conviction on a criminal charge; or
 (b)
Where
the
employee
has
absconded and his whereabouts are not known
to Federation/ Milk Union for more than three
months; or
 (c) Where the employee refuses or
fails without sufficient cause to appear before
the Inquiring Officer when specifically called
upon in writing to appear; or
 (d) 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.
 (3) Disciplinary proceedings shall be
taken by the Federation/Milk Federation against
the employee on a report made to this effect by
the inspecting authority or an officer of the
Federation/Milk Union under whose control the
employee is working.
 (4) The Inquiring Officer shall be
appointed by the appointing authority for the
purpose by the appointing authority:
 Provided that the officer at whose
instance disciplinary action was started shall not
be appointed as an Inquiring Officer nor shall
the Inquiring Officer be the appellate authority.
 (5) In the case of an erring"employee
falling in clause (4) of Regulation No. 7 the
Competent Authority if so provided in the
bye"laws
shall
draw
up
a
duplicate
charge"sheet against the employee and the same
shall be communicated to the authorized officer
who shall, if prima facie case has been made
out by the reporting authority, withdraw him
from the Federation/Milk Union and take
disciplinary action against him.
 (6) An employee other than one
referred to in clause (5) may be placed under
suspension in the following circumstances by
the appointing authority or any other officer
authorized for the purposeâ€"
 (a) when the said authority is
satisfied that a prima facie case exists, which is
likely to result in the removal, dismissal or
reduction in rank of the employee.
 (b) when an enquiry into his conduct
is immediately contemplated or is pending and
his further continuance on his post is considered
detrimental
to
the
interest
of
the
Federation/Milk Union.
 (c) when a complaint against him of
any
criminal
offence
is
under
police
investigation for which he has been arrested or
he is undergoing trial in a Court of law for
offence under the Indian Penal Code, U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 or any other
Act or charges have been framed against him by
the Criminal Court:
12 All. Rakesh Chandra Jauhari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
227
 Provided that suspension shall be
obligatory where it is called for in terms of
clause (1) of Regulation No. 88.
 (7)(a)
An
employee
under
suspension shall be entitled to a subsistence
allowance as per relevant rules applicable to
State Government employee from time to time:
 Provided that an employee who is
under suspension on the date of coming into
force of these regulations shall continue to draw
such portion of pay and such allowance as he
was allowed to draw for the period of
suspension:
 Provided further that a payment of
the subsistence allowance shall be made unless
the employee has furnished a certificate, and the
authority passing the order of suspension is
satisfied that the employee was not engaged in
any other employment, business, profession, or
vocation and had not earned remuneration
therefore during the period under suspension.
 (b)(1)
When
an
employee
is
reinstated, the authority competent to order the
reinstatement
shall
make
specific
order
regarding pay and allowance to be paid for the
period of suspension whether or not the said
period shall be treated as a period spent on duty:
 Provided that where the authority
passing the order of reinstatement is of the
opinion that the employee has been fully
exonerated or the suspension was wholly
unjustified, the employee shall be given the full
pay and allowances to which he would have
been entitled had he not been suspended.
 (2) In cases not covered by the
proviso to foregoing sub"clause (1) the
employee shall be given such proportion of pay
and allowance as the Competent Authority may
order.
 (c) In case falling under proviso to
sub"clause (b)(1) the period of suspension shall
be treated as a period spent on duty for all
purposes.
 (d) In case falling under sub"clause
(b)(2) the period of suspension shall not be
treated as a period spent on duty, unless the
Competent Authority specifically directs that it
shall be so treated.
 (e) The order of suspension shall not
take retrospective effect.
 (f) Leave shall not be granted to an
employee under suspension.
 (g) An employee against whom
proceedings have been taken either for his arrest
for debt or a criminal charge or who is detained
under any law for preventive detention shall be
considered as under suspension for the period
during which he is so detained in custody or is
undergoing imprisonment and not be allowed
any pay and allowance other than the
subsistence
allowance
admissible
under
sub"clauses (a) and (b) for such period until the
termination of the proceedings taken against
him or until he is relaxed from detention and
allowed to rejoin duty as the case may be.
 (h) A subsistence allowance shall be
payable to the family of an employee who is
detained in jail on the basis of report of the
superintendent of the concerned jail even if
there is no certificate under regulations.
 (i) A suspended employee shall
remain at the place of attachment and in contact
of the Investigation Officer during the period of
suspension and shall intimate his address of
residence and telephone number in writing to
the concerned employer, place of attachment
and Investigation Officer.

(8) In case of fine it shall be deducted
from his pay in monthly instalment, each such
instalment not exceeding one"fourth of his
monthly salary.

(9) The order of suspension may be
revoked byâ€"

(a) the authority which passed
the orders, or
 (b) the appointing authority, if there
are sufficient reasons for revocation and the
same shall be recorded in the order of
revocation.
 87.
Appeal.-
Orders
imposing
penalty under sub"clause (a) to (d) of Clause (1)
of Regulation No. 85 shall be appeasable to the
authorities as mentioned in Appendix 'D'.
 88. (a) Order imposing penalty under
sub"clause (a) to (d) of Clause (1) of Regulation
No. 85 shall not be passed except with the prior
concurrence of the Appointing Authority and
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under sub"clause (e) to (g) except prior
approval of the Registrar.
 (b) An appeal against imposed
penalties of sub"clause (a) to (d) of Clause (1)
of Regulation 85 may to the following"

Nature
of
penalty
Class of
the
penalised
employe
e
Authority
imposing
penalty
Appellate
Authority
1
2
3
4
Censure
C
lass 3
Any Class I
Officer
be
authorised
by
the
appointing
authority
Appointing
Authority

Class
3
and
Class 4
1.
Appointing
Authority
2.
Any
officer
authorised
by
the
appointing
authority
Registrar
Committee
of
Managemen
t
Fine
Class 4
1.
Appointing
Authority
2. Any Class
1 or Class 2
Officer
so
authorised
for
this
purpose
by
the
appointing
authority
Registrar
Appointing
Authority
Recovery of
financial
leave pay or
re"reimburs
e
Class
3
and 4
1.Appointin
g Authority
2. Any first
class officer
so
authorised
for
this
purpose
by
the
appointing
authority
Chairperson
Appointing
Authority

89. Every appeal shall comply with
the following requirementsâ€"
 (a) It shall be couched in polite and
respectful language.
 (b) It shall contain all material facts
and argument and shall be complete in itself.
 (c) It shall be accompanied by an
attested copy of the impugned order.
 (d) It shall specify the relief desired.
 (e) It shall be submitted through
proper channel within 30 days from the date of
receipt of order imposing the penalty.
 90. An appeal preferred through
proper channel under sub"clause (e) of
Regulation No. 86 shall be forwarded without
undue delay to the appellate authority with the
comments of the authority through which it is
submitted.
 91. Save as provided in these
regulations, no appeal shall be addressed or
endorsed to or bear recommendations of other
authorities or persons. A defiance of this
regulation as well as any attempt to influence or
canvass the appellate authority shall be deemed
as breach of discipline, rendering the appeal
liable to rejection and the employee to action
for breach of discipline.―

9. A perusal of Regulation 85(1) shows
that various classes of penalties, or so to speak
grades
of
them,
are
envisaged
under
sub"clauses (a) to (h) of Regulation 85(1) of the
Regulations of 2010. A comparison of clauses
(1), (3) and (4) of Regulation 85 would show
that for the more serious penalties envisaged
under sub"clauses (e), (f) or (h) of clause (1) of
Regulation 85, the procedure for holding
disciplinary
proceedings
has
been
made
mandatory. Clause (4)(a) of Regulation 85
would show that for serious misconduct, a
charge"sheet has to be issued. Clause (3) says
that except for censure, other penalties, which
would include those enumerated in sub"clauses
(b), (c) and (d) of clause (1) of Regulation 85, a
show
cause
notice
is
mandatory.
No
charge"sheet or disciplinary proceeding is
envisaged. This would lead to the inescapable
conclusion that the punishment of reduction to
the basic pay scale, which is apparently covered
by clause (f), that speaks about reduction in
rank or grade held substantively by the
employee, is regarded as a major punishment to
be
awarded
after
regular
disciplinary
proceedings.

10. Now, having regard to the
Regulations of 2010 and the salutary procedure
to hold disciplinary proceedings, it is essential
12 All. Rakesh Chandra Jauhari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
229
that in the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry
Officer must convene himself into an Inquiry
Tribunal, detached from the Establishment, of
which he might otherwise be a part. He must
not sit with the assumption that the charges are
true and it is the employee, who is required to
dispel the charges, that come with proof of
themselves. He must require the Establishment
to prove the charges by producing evidence
through a Presenting Officer, particularly oral
evidence or witnesses to prove the charges in a
case, where a major penalty may be imposed.
Even if the inquiry proceeds ex parte, it is the
duty of the Inquiry Officer to require the
Establishment to prove the charges in the
employee's absence. A default in filing a reply
or offering his defence, would not lead to
Establishment of the charges ipso facto. The
petitioner has averred in paragraph No.12 of the
writ petition that no inquiry was held or the
statement of witnesses recorded in support of
the charges. The facts that no witnesses were
examined by the Establishment and the Inquiry
Officer opined merely on the basis of idle
papers annexed to the charge"sheet, with no
evidence
being
led
on
behalf
of
the
Establishment and findings of guilt recorded,
are admitted to the respondents. In this
connection, a part of paragraph No.9 of the
counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 is
very relevant. It reads:

 "9. That in reply to the contents of
para 12 of the writ petition, it is stated that the
charges were based upon the document, as such
the enquiry officer considered the document
and the reply of the petitioner and held the
petitioner guilty. .....―

11. A perusal of the Inquiry Officer's
report removes all iota of doubt that an inquiry
in the sense understood in a major penalty
matter was ever held. There was a fundamental
breach of salutary procedure. No evidence
whatsoever
was
produced,
particularly,
witnesses in support of the charges by the
Establishment to prove them. The Inquiry
Officer sat with a closed mind, shuffled through
the charge"sheet and the petitioner's reply
besides idle papers, and cursorily held the
charges proved. The fact that the petitioner was
given opportunity before the Disciplinary
Authority to appear in person and explain
himself, does not absolve the Establishment of
their burden to prove the charges at the inquiry.
The entire approach of the respondents is one of
regarding the charges as proof of themselves
with
burden
upon
the
petitioner,
the
charge"sheeted employee, to dispel the charge.
This
approach
of
the
respondents
is
fundamentally flawed and vitiates the findings
of the Inquiry Officer as also the resultant order
of punishment. The law in this regard is well
settled as held by the Supreme Court in State of
Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar
Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, Roop Singh Negi v.
Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2
SCC 570, State of Uttaranchal and others v.
Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236 and the
Bench decisions of this Court in State of U.P.
and another v. Kishori Lal and another, 2018
(9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB), Smt. Karuna Jaiswal
v. State of U.P., 2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB) (LB)
and State of U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava
and another, 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB) (LB).

12. The position of the law in this
regard that has withstood the test of time has
been recently endorsed by the Supreme Court in
Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P. and
another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325, where it
has been held:

 "12. Learned counsel for the State
was ad idem to the submissions of the
appellant's counsel that no witness whatsoever
was examined during the course of the inquiry
proceedings. On a minute appraisal of the
Inquiry Report, it is evident that other than
referring to the documents pursuant to the
so"called irregular transactions constituting the
basis of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer failed to
record the evidence of even a single witness in
order to establish the charges against the
appellant.

13. This Court in a catena of
judgments has held that the recording of
evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing
charges of a major punishment is mandatory.
Reference in this regard may be held to Roop
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2
SCC 570 and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of
Gujarat, (2013) 4 SCC 301.

13. Apart from the other issues, it is
also true that in view of Regulation 88, the
impugned order imposing the punishment of
reduction to basic pay scale could not have been
awarded without the prior approval of the
Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Nevertheless,
since this Court is of opinion that the impugned
order is vitiated more fundamentally by a
flawed inquiry, it would not matter much
because the order impugned has to be quashed
with liberty to the respondents, if they so elect
to proceed afresh from the stage of the
charge"sheet.

14. There is still a further grievance
that the petitioner makes and more relief that he
seeks. The petitioner has retired from service
way back on 31.08.2017. It is the petitioner's
case that he has not been paid his gratuity,
employees provident fund, group insurance and
dues on account of leave encashment. Even if
the respondents elect to proceed afresh against
the petitioner, they would not be at liberty to
impose a punishment higher than that awarded
by the order impugned. This would not result in
any kind of terminal punishment against the
petitioner or an order for recovery of the loss
occasioned. Therefore, while the respondents
may consider the issue of awarding gratuity to
the petitioner, they would have to ensure
payment of the employee's provident fund,
group insurance and dues on account of leave
encashment, irrespective of the outcome of the
inquiry de novo, if any, undertaken against the
petitioner.

15. In the result, this petition succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned order dated
10.03.2016 passed by the Chief General
Manager, PCDF is hereby quashed. It will be
open to the respondents to proceed against the
petitioner afresh from the stage of the
charge"sheet in the manner indicated in this
judgment. If the respondents elect to proceed
afresh against the petitioner, the award of
gratuity
would
await
the
outcome
of
disciplinary proceedings taken de novo. The
employee's provident fund, group insurance and
dues on account of leave encashment shall be
paid to the petitioner forthwith, irrespective of
the fact, if fresh proceedings are taken against
the petitioner or not. If no fresh proceedings are
taken against the petitioner, the gratuity due
shall also be paid on the basis of the pay scale,
to which the petitioner was entitled prior to the
order impugned.

16. In the event, the respondents elect
to pursue fresh proceedings, the same shall be
expedited and concluded within a period of four
months next. In the event of fresh proceedings
being taken, it will not be open to the
respondents to impose a penalty, higher than
that awarded by the impugned order dated
10.03.2016, since quashed by this judgment.

17. There shall be no order as to costs.

18. Let this order be communicated to
the
Chief
General
Manager,
Pradeshik
Cooperative
Dairy
Federation
Limited,
Lucknow and the Managing Director, Pradeshik
Cooperative
Dairy
Federation
Limited,
Lucknow through the learned Civil Judge (Sr.
Div.), Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 230
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ B No. 3538 of 1982

Smt. Kela & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Jahangir Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Virendra Singh, Deoraj Singh, Devendra
Dahma, K.M. Garg