# (Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman)

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 347
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-03-15
- **Bench:** Rajiv Sharma, Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/union-of-india-v-k-v-jankiraman-42510
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

1 All] Meesam Ammar Rizvi and another Vs. District Asst. Registrar, Co-operative socities &ors. 347
proceeding, it is trite law, is not initiated
merely by issuance of a show cause
notice. It is initiated only when a charge
sheet is issued (Union of India Vs. K.V.
Jankiraman). This aspect of the matter has
also been considered by this Court
recently in Coal India Ltd. Vs. Saroj
Kumar Mishra, wherein it was held that
date of application of mind on the
allegations leveled against an officer by
the competent authority as a result
whereof a charge sheet is issued would be
the date on which the disciplinary
proceedings are said to have been initiated
and not prior thereto. Pendency of a
preliminary enquiry, therefore, by itself
cannot be a ground for invoking Clause
20 of the Regulations."

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
clearly laid down service law relating
to the departmental enquiries and
services. It is very clear from the ratio
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in above
mentioned citations that the enquiry
should
have
commenced
during
service by issue charge-sheet and not
mere by show cause notice. The
departmental enquiry proceedings are
not initiated merely by issuance of
show cause notice, it is initiated only
when charge-sheet has been issued
(Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman).
The Apex Court itself ruled in 'Coal
India Ltd. Vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra'
that the date of application of mind on
the allegations leveled against an
officer by the competent authority as a
result whereof the charge-sheet is
issued would be the date on which the
disciplinary proceedings is said to
have been initiated and not prior
thereto, therefore, it is crystal clear
that in the instant petition the facts are
attracted to the ratio given by the
Hon'ble
Apex
Court
in
case
Jankiraman (Supra), therefore, there
remains no doubt that the respondents
have violated the legal norms and
unnecessarily harassed the petitioner.
Therefore, since last more than twenty
five years he is being harassed and
tortured by the act of respondents,
therefore special cost is being imposed
on the respondents as of Rs. 25,000/-
(Twenty Five Thousand) to meet the ends
of justice.

9. We accordingly allow the petition
and quash the impugned 28.10.1996
(Annexure No. 18) passed by State Public
Services Tribunal and also quash the
order dated 19.03.1988 passed by the
opposite party no. 3, Superintending
Engineer, Tubewell Circle, Lucknow
(Annexure No. 11) for the recovery of Rs.
2,67,667.84 paise and mandamus has
issued against the respondent nos. 1 to 5
to pay full pensionary benefits as prayed.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed with cost. Rs. 25,000/- Half of
the cost be paid to the petitioner and rest
will be credited in the account of
Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this
Court. The cost be paid within a period of
three months from the date of order and in
default of payment of cost, the District
Magistrate shall realize as land revenue in
accordance with order of the Court.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAEED-UZ-ZAMAN SIDDIQI, J.
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
Writ Petition No. 2291 OF 2003 (M/B)

Meesam Ammar Rizvi and another

...Petitioner
Versus
District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative
Societies and others ...Respondents

Constitution of India, Art.-226- Recovery
of Loan Rs. 5,31,143/- loan advanced to
purchase
Luxury
car-
petitioner
deposited Rs. 5,80,200/- between April
99 to March 2001-hence demand notice
bad-provisions of cooperative Societies
Act Section 91 not attracted-court found
deposit receipt of Rs. 5,80,200/- as
forged document-exemplary cost of Rs.
2,50,000/-imposed
with
direction
to
initiate proceeding under section 340
Cr.P.C.

Held: Para-15

From what we have mentioned above, it
is clear that the petitioner has filed this
writ petition with oblique motives and
has not presented the correct facts just
to gain undue advantage. Such type of
act should always be discouraged and is
highly deprecated. This is the case,
where we thought to impose heavy cost
so as to deter in indulging such activities
again. Therefore, we do not find any
justification
to
interfere
with
the
recovery
notice
under
challenge
or
entertain the petitioner's prayer for
setting aside the impugned recovery
citation.

Case Law discussed:
(1997) 2 SCC 682; AIR 1983 SC 1015; [2008
(12)SCC 481; (2009)3 SCC 141;

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J)

1. Heard Sri Sudeep Seth, learned
Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vivek Raj
Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 and Sri H.P. Srivastava,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel.

2. Through the instant writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner challenges the notice
dated 31.3.2003 issued under Section 91
of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act,
1965 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"]
by District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative
Societies,
U.P.,
Lucknow
(respondent No.1), contained in Annexure
No.1 to the writ petition, requiring the
petitioner to deposit Rs.5,31,143/- within
a period of one month, otherwise, the
orders for sale of properties of the
petitioners would be issued to recover the
said amount. It was also provided that the
petitioners may submit their reply, if any,
by 18.4.2003 on any working day.

3. Shorn off unnecessary details, the
facts of the case are that petitioner No.1Meesam
Ammar
Rizvi
applied
for
commercial loan of Rs.4,63,000/- from
City Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ashok
Marg, Lucknow for purchasing a Luxury
Vehicle i.e. Car, which was sanctioned
and disbursed to the petitioner No.1 on
5.4.1999. In the said loan, petitioner
No.2-Anwar Rizvi was a guarantor.

4. According to petitioners, during
the period from April, 1999 to March,
2001, petitioner No.1 deposited an
amount of Rs.5,80,200/- through Cash in
the
Bank.
Therefore,
the
entire
outstanding loan amount was repaid by
the petitioner No.1 by March, 2001.
According to him, petitioner No.1 had
deposited
more
amount
than
the
outstanding loan dues but even then, the
Secretary/Recovery Officer, City Cooperative
Bank
Ltd.,
Ashok
Marg,
Lucknow (respondent No.2) issued a
notice dated 8.6.2002 to the petitioners to
deposit
outstanding
loan
due
of
1 All] Meesam Ammar Rizvi and another Vs. District Asst. Registrar, Co-operative socities &ors. 349
Rs.4,06,454/- (Annexure No.4 to the writ
petition), to which petitioners, vide letters
dated 25.7.2002 and 7.8.2002, demanded
up-dated statement of accounts from the
respondent No.2.

5. According to petitioners, instead
of
furnishing
updated
statement
of
accounts, respondent No.2 issued another
notice dated 3.9.2002 to the petitioners,
requiring
from
them
to
deposit
Rs.5,31,143/- towards outstanding dues
within a week from the date of receipt of
the notice, otherwise proceedings under
Section 91 of the Act would be initiated
against them and the dues would be
realized by sale of the property of the
petitioners. Thereafter, petitioners have
again asked to furnish them updated
statement of account to settle the matter
vide letter dated 11.9.2002 but no heed
was paid. However, the petitioner No.1
had sent a detailed reply dated 21.9.2002
to the notice dated 3.9.2002, regarding
invocation of Section 91 of the Act.
Instead of considering the reply, the
impugned
recovery
notice
dated
31.3.2003 under Section 91 of the Act has
been issued to the petitioners, which is
highly arbitrary and unlawful.

6. Hence the instant writ petition.

7. Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Counsel
for
the
petitioners
submits
that
commercial loan granted by a Cooperative Society for purchase of Luxury
Car is not subject to charge under Section
39 of the Act and as such, the property,
which is not subject to charge under
Section 39 of the Act, cannot be enforced
under Section 91 of the Act. He submits
that the petitioner has already deposited
the entire outstanding loan dues to the
respondent-Bank and as such, notice
issued under Section 91 of the Act is
illegal and arbitrary. In support of his
submission, he has relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in Recovery
Officer, Lakhimpur and others Versus
Ravindra Kaur (Smt.) and others
reported in (1997) 2 SCC 682.

8. Per contra, Sri Vivek Raj Singh,
learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2
and 3 submits that averments made in the
counter
affidavit
that receipt
dated
17.3.2001 showing the payment of
Rs.3,50,000/- and receipt dated 7.3.2001
for Rs. 20,000/- are forged and actually
no money has been deposited, was
strongly refuted by the petitioners in the
rejoinder affidavit and as such, with the
consent of the parties, a Division Bench
of this Court, vide order dated 2.2.2006,
directed the Divisional General Manager,
Urban Bank Department, Reserve Bank of
India, to make an enquiry in the matter
and submit his report to this Court. In
compliance of the order dated 2.2.2006,
the Deputy General Manager, Reserve
Bank of India, Urban Banks Department,
Lucknow, inquired into the matter and
submitted its report dated 20.3.2006.

9. While drawing attention to the
inquiry report dated 20.3.2006, Sri Vivek
Raj Singh submits that the Inquiry
Officer, in his report dated 20.3.2006, has
asserted that the alleged payment of
Rs.20,000
and
Rs.3,50,000/-
dated
7.3.2001 and 17.3.2001 in the car loan
account of Meesam Ammar Rizvi i.e.
petitioner No.1 were not received by the
Ashok Marg Branch of City Co-operative
Bank Ltd., Lucknow. It has also been
pointed out in the report dated 20.3.2006
that the cash receipt stamps put on the
counterfoils dated 7.3.2001 and 17.3.2001
produced by the petitioner No.1, are also
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
apparently different from that put on the
cash vouchers of Ashok Marg Branch of
City Co-operative Bank, Lucknow on
7.3.2001 and 17.3.2001. Therefore, the
documents, which have been annexed
alongwith the writ petition by the
petitioners in support of their case, are
forged and fabricated documents and as
such, he preferred an application for
initiating proceedings under Section 340
Cr.P.C. against the petitioners.

10. We have heard learned Counsel
for the parties and perused the records.

11. In order to adjudicate the matter
to its logical end, we think it appropriate
to reproduce the Enquiry Report dated
20.3.2006, which is as under :

"The undersigned came to know of
the orders dated 02.02.2006 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in above writ
petition No. 2291 (M/B) of 2003 vide City
Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lucknow letter
No.
HO./ADM/433/05-06
dated
22.02.2006. Accordingly, as directed the
Hon'ble High Court, I advised both the
petitioners viz. Shri Messam Ammar Rizvi
and Shri Anwar Rizvi on 24.02.2006 to
come to my office on 06.03.2006 at 11.00
a.m. along with all their original
documents. Shri Meesam Ammar Rizvi
called on me on 06.03.2006. However,
Shri Anwar Rizvi did not come. Shri
Meesam Ammar Rizvi showed me the
original documents pertaining to his car
loan a/c No.VEH-656 in question. I took
photocopy of some of the counterfoils
showing payments in cash in the above
loan account. During the course of
investigation Shri Rizvi told me that
repayment instalments were generally
collected by the bank from his house. He
also told me that the sum of Rs.3,50,000/=
was paid in cash on 17.03.2001 through
Shri Gorakh Nath Srivastav, the then
CEO/Secretary of the bank, at his request
to tide over the liquidity constraint being
faced by the bank at the time. He also told
me that receipt for the same was given to
him after much persuasion. Shri Rizvi has
also submitted copy of a sale deed dated
22.02.2001
showing
receipt
of
Rs.3,30,000/= in cash. After hearing the
petitioners, I advised the City Cooperative Bank Ltd., Lucknow vide letter
dated 06.03.2006 to provide certain
information/documents. They gave me the
information/documents vide their letter
dated 17.03.2006. On the same day
(17.03.2006) I scrutinized some of their
relevant original documents and also
talked to the bank officials. I have also
gone through the writ petition, affidavits,
counter affidavits etc. filed by the parties
to the dispute.

My observations are as under :

Shri Meesam Ammar Rizvi had taken
a
car
loan
of
Rs.4,63,000/=
on
05.04.1999 from the Ashok Marg branch
of City Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lucknow.
There is no dispute in this regard. There
is also no dispute regarding the fact that
Shri Rizvi has been making payment in his
above loan account from time to time. The
dispute is only regarding the cash
payment
of
Rs.20,000/=
and
Rs.3,50,000/= alleged to have been made
by Shri Meesam Ammar Rizvi in his above
loan
account
on
07.03.2001
and
17.03.2001
respectively.
In
this
connection, the attendance register of the
Ashok Marg branch of the bank for the
month of March, 2001 and its cash
vouchers
dated
07.03.2001
and
17.03.2001 show that one Shri Neeraj
1 All] Meesam Ammar Rizvi and another Vs. District Asst. Registrar, Co-operative socities &ors. 351
Anand had worked as cashier at the
branch on both these dates whereas the
counterfoils produced by Shri Rizvi bear
the signature of two different persons.
Signatures on the counterfoils dated
07.03.2001 and 17.03.2001 produced by
Shri Rizvi are also apparently different
from that of Shri Neeraj Anand who had
worked as cashier of the branch on these
dates. Moreover, the cash receipt stamps
put on the counterfoils dated 07.03.2001
and 17.03.2001 produced by Shri Rizvi
are also apparently different from that put
on the cash vouchers of Ashok Marg
branch of the bank on 07.03.2001 and
17.03.2001. Moreover, the cash scroll of
Ashok Marg branch of the Bank also does
not show any such cash receipt of
Rs.20,000/= and Rs.3,50,000/= in the
loan account of Shri Meesam Ammar
Rizvi on 07.03.2001 and 17.03.2001
respectively. As per the bank records
during the month of March 2001, Shri
Rizvi
had
deposited
Rs.2000/=
on
07.03.2001
and
Rs.15000/=
on
20.03.2001 in his loan account.

In view of the foregoing, it is clear
that both alleged payments of Rs.20000/=
and Rs.3,50,000/= dated 07.03.2001 and
17.03.2001 in the car loan account of shri
Meesam Ammar Rizvi were not received
by the Ashok Marg branch of City Cooperative Bank Ltd., Lucknow. As regards
the contention of Shri Rizvi that payment
of Rs.3,50,000/= on 17.03.2001 was made
through Shri Gorakh Nath Srivastav, the
then CEO/Secretary of the bank, it is not
possible to offer any comment because
Shri Srivastav is no more alive to answer
the charge. Moreover, Shri Rizvi also
could not produce any documentary proof
in this regard except the copy of a sale
deed dated 22.02.2001 showing receipt of
Rs.3,20,000/= being the sale deed dated
22.02.2001
showing
receipt
of
Rs.3,20,000/= being the sale proceeds of
his Mango/Guava orchards. The bank's
officials are also not aware of existence of
any system in the bank for collection of
payments from the customer's house in
those days."

12. From perusal of the above report
dated 20.3.2006, it is clear that document,
which has been annexed by the petitioners
at Page No.24 of the writ petition relating
to deposit receipt of Rs.3,50,000/-, is a
fabricated document insofar as the said
amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was never
deposited by the petitioners in the City
Co-operative
Bank.
Even
otherwise,
Section 269 T of the Income-tax Act
prohibits repayment of loan in cash, if the
amount is twenty thousands or more.
Thus, we are of the opinion that the
petitioners have preferred the instant writ
petition with incorrect facts by annexing
forged documents, just to gain undue
advantage, in which, the petitioners got
success when a Division Bench of this
Court, on believing the assertion of the
petitioners to be true, prima facie, stayed
the recovery with respect to the loan taken
by the petitioners for the purchase of car
vide ad interim order dated 1.5.2003. In
these
backgrounds,
we
feel
that
dishonesty should not be permitted to bear
the fruit and benefit to the persons who
played fraud or made misrepresentation
and it is the duty of the Courts to see that
fraud is not perpetuated.

13. In Welcome Hotel and Ors. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc.
AIR 1983 SC 1015, the Apex Court has
held that a party which has misled the
Court in passing an order in its favour is
not entitled to be heard on the merits of
the case.
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

14. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel
Authority of India Ltd. and Ors., [2008
(12) SCC 481], the Apex Court has held
that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
under Article 32 and of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution is
extraordinary, equitable and discretionary
and
it
is
imperative
that
person
approaching the Writ Court must come
with clean hands and put forward all the
facts before the Court without concealing
or suppressing anything and seek an
appropriate relief. If there is no candid
disclosure of relevant and material facts
or the petitioner is guilty of misleading
the Court, his petition may be dismissed
at the threshold without considering the
merits of the claim. The same rule was
reiterated in G. Jayshree and Ors. v.
Bhagwandas S. Patel and Ors.: (2009) 3
SCC 141.

15. From what we have mentioned
above, it is clear that the petitioner has
filed this writ petition with oblique
motives and has not presented the correct
facts just to gain undue advantage. Such
type of act should always be discouraged
and is highly deprecated. This is the case,
where we thought to impose heavy cost so
as to deter in indulging such activities
again. Therefore, we do not find any
justification to interfere with the recovery
notice under challenge or entertain the
petitioner's prayer for setting aside the
impugned recovery citation.

16. The writ petition is dismissed
with cost, which shall be quantified as
Rs.2,50,000/-. The petitioners are directed
to deposit the said cost before the
Registry of this Court within a month
from today, failing which, Registrar shall
request the District Magistrate/Collector
to recover the said cost as arrears of land
revenue. On receipt of the said cost, the
Registrar of this Court shall remit the said
amount/cost in the account of Mediation
and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

17. As regard the application for
initiating proceeding under Section 340
Cr.P.C.
against
the
petitioners
is
concerned, it will be open for the
respondents, if they so desire, to approach
the Magistrate concerned.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ABDUL MATEEN, J.
THE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.

Misc. Bench No. 2358 of 2013

Anurag Kumar and others ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. and others...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.P. Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Constitution of India-Art. 226- Quashing
of FIR-offence under Section 379 IPC
and
4/10
Tree
Protection
ActCommission
of
Cognizable
offence
disclosed from FIR-can not be quashedpetitioner shall not be arrested till
submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr. P.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Mateen J)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners
and
learned
Additional
Government Advocate.

2. Under challenge in the instant
writ petition is F.I.R. relating to Case