# Virendra K. Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 176
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-22
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 2000639 of 2008
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/virendra-k-singh-chauhan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49943
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
- Recovery from Retiral Benefits - Uttar
Pradesh Cooperative Societies Employees
Service Regulations, 1975 - There is no
provision in the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative
Societies Employees Service Regulations,
1975 for initiation or continuation of
disciplinary proceeding after retirement
nor is there any provision stating that in
case
misconduct
is
established,
a
deduction could be made from the retiral
benefits. (Para 19)

Once the petitioner has retired from service on
31.12.2001, there was no authority vested in
the corporation for continuing the departmental
proceeding even for the purpose of imposing
any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to
the petitioner. In absence of such an
authority,
it
is
held
that
enquiry/disciplinary
proceeding
had
lapsed and the petitioner was entitled to
full retiral benefits on retirement. As the
enquiry has lapsed, it is obvious that the
petitioner would have to get the balance of the
emoluments payable to him. (Para 20)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
available to the party is that if he is
aggrieved by the order passed by the writ
Court, he may challenge the same by taking
appropriate course under law.

13. In view of the aforesaid settled
law, the writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The
order
impugned
dated
03.04.2012 is hereby quashed. Respondents
are directed to grant all the consequential
benefits including the pensionery benefits
as well as arrears of salary, to the petitioner,
as directed by the writ Court in it's order
dated 23.02.2012.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 176
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ A No. 2000639 of 2008

Virendra K. Singh Chauhan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Piyush Asthana, Desh Deepak Singh,
Rajeev Singh, Smriti Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Balram Yadav

A. Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
- Recovery from Retiral Benefits - Uttar
Pradesh Cooperative Societies Employees
Service Regulations, 1975 - There is no
provision in the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative
Societies Employees Service Regulations,
1975 for initiation or continuation of
disciplinary proceeding after retirement
nor is there any provision stating that in
case
misconduct
is
established,
a
deduction could be made from the retiral
benefits. (Para 19)

Once the petitioner has retired from service on
31.12.2001, there was no authority vested in
the corporation for continuing the departmental
proceeding even for the purpose of imposing
any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to
the petitioner. In absence of such an
authority,
it
is
held
that
enquiry/disciplinary
proceeding
had
lapsed and the petitioner was entitled to
full retiral benefits on retirement. As the
enquiry has lapsed, it is obvious that the
petitioner would have to get the balance of the
emoluments payable to him. (Para 20)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Dev Prakash Tewari Vs U.P. Co-operative
Institutional Service Board, Lk & ors., (2014) 7
SCC 260 (Para 13)

2. Bhagirathi Jena Vs Board of Directors, OSFC
& ors., (1999) 3 SCC 666 (Para 13)

3. Brij Mohan Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A No.
42071 of 2016, order dated 16.01.2017 (Para
13)

4. U.P. St.Sugar Corp. Ltd. Vs Kamal Swaroop
Tondon, (2008) 2 SCC 41 (Para 15)

Present petition challenges order dated
20.02.2007, passed by respondent No. 3
and order dated 30.09.2003 with a further
prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent No. 3 to release the amount of
Rs. 42,403/- along with interest of 14%
that has been illegally deducted.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Sri Desh Deepak Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
respondent No.1- State and Sri Balram
3 All. Virendra K. Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
177
Yadav, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.2&3.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed before this Court seeking a writ, order
or direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
20.02.2007 (Annexure No.1) passed by
respondent
No.3
and
order
dated
30.09.2003 (annexure-5) with a further
prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent No.3 to release the amount of
Rs.42,403/- along with interest of 14% that
has been illegally deducted in respect of
loan case of Sri Ishaq Ali.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner was working as Branch Manager
in U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd., who
after completion of service on attaining the
age of superannuation retired from service
on 31.12.2001.

4. The petitioner filed Writ Petition
No.1840 (S/B) of 2001 before this Court
against his date of superannuation fixed by
the bank at the age of 58 years and claimed
parity
of
60
years
in
parity
with
government employees. The writ petition
was admitted and an interim order was
passed therein on 21.12.2001, whereby
following direction was issued:

"Admit.

Issue notice.

List in the week commencing
14.1.2002. In the meantime it would be
open for the U.P. Cooperative Development
Bank to consider the Government G.O.
with regard to enhancement of age of
superannuation of the petitioners to be 60
years. The retirement of the petitioners
shall be subject to the decision of the writ
petition."

5. The Managing Director of the Bank
passed an order on 30.09.2003 on the basis
of which an order was passed on
20.02.2007,
whereby
the
disciplinary
initiation against the petitioner in the year
1997 was concluded after about two years
of his retirement and a recovery of
Rs.1,15,000/- along with upto date interest
was directed against the petitioner from the
dues payable to the petitioner.

6. Against the order dated 30.09.2003,
the petitioner preferred appeal before the
Board of Directors on 27.10.2003, which
was rejected by the appellate authority and
information in this regard was furnished to
the petitioner by the General Manager
(Administration) vide letter No.151609/
karmik/2004-05 dated 13.12.2004.

7. For payment of retiral benefits, the
petitioner preferred representation dated
18.07.2005 before the Managing Director,
however, no heed was paid to the same.
When, the request made by the petitioner
vide representation dated 18.07.2005 was
not replied with, he again filed another
representation on 29.08.2006. Thereafter,
he filed another representation before
respondent No.3 on 19.07.2007 and when
no response was received from the
department, he contacted the concerned
officials of the Bank, where he came to
know that his all retiral benefits viz.
gratuity, insurance, security and leave
encashment etc. were adjusted against the
liabilities fixed upon the petitioner and no
amount was paid to the petitioner.

8. The petitioner filed an application
under Right to Information Act asking the
action taken in respect of deductions made
against his retirement dues and asked to
provide copy of the decisions taken in
respect thereof. Thereafter, the Jan Suchna
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Adhikari
of
the
bank
supplied
the
information sought by the petitioner vide
letter dated 03.12.2007. By the information
so provided, the petitioner came to know
that the deductions were made against
certain loan amounts disbursed by him in
favour of certain persons.

9. In regard to aforesaid deductions,
the petitioner made several representations
/ communications with the bank authorities
and when there was no response, the
present writ petition has been filed before
this Court.

10. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the deductions made
from gratuity, leave encashment, security
and insurance claim of the petitioner is in
violation of Rule 79(1)(d) of the Bank
Service Rules, 1976. He further submitted
that the gratuity cannot be adjusted /
attached even against a decree obtained
from a civil, criminal or revenue Court as it
is protected under the Payment of Gratuity
Act.

11. He further submitted that even if
the version of the respondents is accepted
on its face value, even then deductions
made against the petitioner are premature,
as the recovery proceeding is still pending
at Revenue Department of R.C. sent by the
bank.

12. He next submitted that the
respondent - bank has illegally deducted an
amount of Rs.42,403/- along with interest
from dues of the petitioner against the loan
of one Ishaq Ali, as the petitioner has no
concern with the aforesaid loan granted.

13. He lastly submitted that there is no
pension scheme in the bank and retiral dues
are the only source of livelihood after the
retirement and the respondent - bank has
committed gross illegality in delaying /
deducting the same. In support of his
submissions, he placed reliance upon
following judgments:

a) Dev Prakash Tewari Vs. U.P.
Co-operative Institutional Service Board,
Lucknow and others; (2014) 7 SCC 260.

b) Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of
Directors, OSFG and others; (1999) 3 SCC
666.

c) Brij Mohan V. State of U.P. and
5 Ors.; Writ-A No.42071 of 2016, order
dated 16.01.2017.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondent Nos. 2&3 oppose the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the petitioner and submitted that the order
dated 30.09.2003 passed by the Managing
Director of the respondent - bank was passed
on the basis of disciplinary proceedings, in
which the petitioner was found guilty for loss
of Rs.1,15,000/- with interest and accordingly,
recovery was directed to be made from postretiral benefits of the petitioner.

15. He further submitted that it is settled
proposition of law that the recovery of amount
/ loss caused to the department by the
employee is recoverable from the gratuity and
other payable post-retiral dues and therefore,
there is no illegality in the recovery made by
the respondent - bank from retiral benefits of
the petitioner. In support of his submissions, he
placed reliance upon following judgments:

a) U.P. State Sugar Corporation
Ltd. Vs. Kamal Swaroop Tondon; (2008)
2 SCC 41.

16. Learned A.C.S.C. also adopted the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for respondent Nos.2&3.
3 All. Virendra K. Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
179

17. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material on record.

18.
To
resolve
the
controversy
involved in the matter, the judgments relied
upon by learned counsel for the parties are
being quoted below:

a) Judgments relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner:

i) Dev Prakash Tewari (Supra):

"5. We have carefully considered
the rival submissions. The facts are not in
dispute. The Hihg Court while quashing the
earlier disciplinary proceedings on the
ground of violation of principles of natural
justice in its order dated 10-1-2006 granted
liberty to initiate the fresh inquiry in
accordance with the Regulations. The
appellant who was reinstated in service on
26-4-2006
and
fresh
disciplinary
proceeding was initiated on 7-7-2006 and
while that was pending, the appellant
attained the age of superannuation and
retired on 31-3-2009. There is no provision
in the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies
Employees Service Regulations, 1975 for
initiation or continuation of disciplinary
proceeding after retirement of the appellant
nor is there any provision stating that in
case misconduct is established a deduction
could be made from his retiral benefits."

ii) Bhagirathi Jena (Supra):

"In view of the absence of such a
provision in the abovesaid regulations, it
must be held that the Corporation had no
legal authority to make any reduction in the
retiral benefits of the appellant. There is
also
no
provision
for
conducing
a
disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the
appellant and nor any provision stating
that in case misconduct is established, a
deduction could be made from retiral
benefits. Once the appellant had retired
from service on 30-6-1995, there was no
authority vested in the Corporation for
continuing the departmental enquiry even
for the purpose of imposing any reduction
in the retiral benefits payable to the
appellant. In the absence of such an
authority, it must be held that the enquiry
had lapsed and the appellant was entitled
to full retiral benefits on retirement."

iii) Brij Mohan (Supra):

"A perusal of the aforesaid
judgment it is manifestly clear that the facts
of this case are squarely covered by the
judgment in Dev Prakash Tewari (Supra).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
failed to point out any provision under the
Regulations, 1975 or any other guidelines
under the Act, 202 to continue the
disciplinary proceedings after the employee
has retired. Accordingly, the order dated
22.06.2016 is set aside and it is held that
the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide
order dated 22.06.2016 stand lapsed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed."

b) Judgments relied upon by
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2&3:

i) U.P. State Sugar Corporation
Ltd. (Supra):

"In our opinion, Mahadevan does
not held the respondent. No rigid, inflexible
or invariable test can be applied as to when
the proceeding should be allowed to be
continued and when they should be ordered
to be dropped. In such cases there is
neither lower limit nor upper limit. If on the
facts and in the circumstances of the case,
the Court is satisfied that there was gross,
inordinate and unexplained delay in
initiating departmental proceedings and
continuation of such proceedings would
seriously prejudice the employee and would
result in miscarriage of justice, it may
quash them. We may, however, hasten to
add that it is an exception to the general
rule that once the proceedings are initiated,
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
they must be taken to the logical end. It,
therefore, cannot be laid down as a
proposition of law or a rule of universal
application that if there is delay in
initiation of proceedings for a particular
period, they must necessarily be quashed."

19. On perusal of the case laws cited
by learned counsel for the parties, it is
evident that there is no provision in the
Uttar
Pradesh
Cooperative
Societies
Employees Service Regulations, 1975 for
initiation or continuation of disciplinary
proceeding after retirement nor is there any
provision stating that in case misconduct is
established, a deduction could be made
from the retiral benefits.

20. Once the petitioner has retired
from service on 31.12.2001, there was no
authority vested in the corporation for
continuing the departmental proceeding
even for the purpose of imposing any
reduction in the retiral benefits payable to
the petitioner. In absence of such an
authority, it is held that enquiry /
disciplinary proceeding had lapsed and the
petitioner was entitled to full retiral
benefits on retirement. As the enquiry has
lapsed, it is obvious that the petitioner
would have to get the balance of the
emoluments payable to him.

21. In view of reasons recorded above,
the impugned orders dated 20.02.2007
(Annexure
No.1)
and
30.09.2003
(annexure-5) are hereby quashed.

22. The writ petition succeeds and is
allowed.

23. The respondents are directed to
pay the allowances / post retiral benefits to
the petitioner as claimed in the writ petition
in
accordance
with
the
rules
and
regulations within a period of eight weeks
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 180
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Writ B No. 54 of 2023

Smt. Maya Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prabhakar Vardhan Chaudhary, Mohammad
Aslam Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gyanendra Singh, Harish Chandra,
Mohan Singh, Rakesh Kumar Singh, Ripu
Daman Shahi

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Sections 80, 80 (1), 80 (4), 116 & 210 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 -
Board of Revenue - It is settled principle
of law that issuance of a writ or quashing
/setting aside of an order if revives
another pernicious or wrong or illegal
order - in that eventuality the writ court
should not interfere in the matter and
should refuse to exercise its discretionary
power conferred upon it under Article 226
- Reference has been made to the
judgment decided on 24.02.2020 in Atul
Kumar Singh Vs St. of U.P. - Where orders
impugned are equitable and substantial
justice seems to have been done to the
parties, the Writ Court would not be
inclined to interfere merely on the ground
that such orders are wrong in law -
Hence, Court refuse to interfere in the
impugned order. (Para 12, 27, 29)