Allahabad High Court
Ramakant Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 27 February, 2020
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 85 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27932 of 2015 Petitioner :- Ramakant Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishwa Ratna Dwivedi,S.K. Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shivaji Singh Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K.Mishra, learned standing counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Shivaji Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the suspension order dated 24.1.2015, passed by respondent no.4, by which petitioner was put under suspension on the basis of a letter written by the Chairman of the Piparkundi Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Block Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.
Petitioner, who is a Cadre Secretary and was working in the Society in question was put under suspension by order dated 24.1.2015.
Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that order impugned has been passed without obtaining prior consent of the Assistant Registrar as mandated under Rule 14(5 )of the U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies Centralised Services Rules,1976. He has also relied upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Pandey vs. District Administrative Committee and others, 1998(3)UPLBEC 1747 and also a decision of this Court rendered in Writ-A No.2894 of 2019, Devendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, decoded on 19.4.2019.
On the other hand, Sri Shivaji Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4 submitted that concurrence was granted by the Assistant Commissioner-cum-Assistant Registrar, Cooperative, Kaushambi on 7.12.2013, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure CA 1 and thus, it cannot be said that the concurrence was not obtained before putting petitioner under suspension.
Replying to the argument of the respondents, Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, invited attention of the Court to Annexure CA-2, which is a letter written by the Chairman of the Society to the Chairman of the District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Allahabad Kaushambi on 17.1.2015 wherein a request was made to initiate disciplinary proceedings agaisnt the petitioner.
Having heard, learned counsel for the appellant and from the perusal of record, it appears that very starting line of the order impugned starts taking into consideration the letter of the Chairman of the Society in question by the Secretary, District Administrative Committee on 24.1.2014, putting the petitioner under suspension and further there is no recital of the fact that prior concurrence of the Assistant Registrar as mandated under the Rules was taken by the District Administrative Committee before putting petitioner under suspension.
The legal position as clarified by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra Pandey (supra) is that at that relevant point of time the Assistant Registrar was Member Secretary of the District Administrative Committee as such the question of prior concurrence did not arise, but now the charge of the Member Secretary is with the Secretary of the District Cooperative Bank as such the prior concurrence is needed before putting the Member of Central Service under suspension.
In view of the said legal position, without the prior concurrence of the Assistant Commissioner-cum-Assistant Registrar, the order impugned could not have been passed by the Member Secretary, District Administrative Committee.
In view of the above, the order impugned dated 21.1.2015 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefit accrued to him.
Writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 27.2.2020 AKJ