Allahabad High Court
Vivek Chandra Trivedi vs U.P. Cooperative Federation Lko. Thru. ... on 1 December, 2022
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8089 of 2022 Petitioner :- Vivek Chandra Trivedi Respondent :- U.P. Cooperative Federation Lko. Thru. Its Managing Director And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap Singh,Abhishek Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- Sunil Sharma,Prashast Puri Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Sri Shireesh Kumar, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was suspended while instituting an enquiry by a cumulative order dated 20-11-2019. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 24093(S/S) of 2020, Vivek Chandra Trivedi Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. This court by means of the order dated 10-12-2020 passed in the said writ petition, stayed the operation and implementation of the order dated 20-11-2019. Therefore, the enquiry could not have proceeded and held against the petitioner once the order by which the enquiry was ordered to be initiated, had been stayed by this court. He further submits that two punishments have been awarded to the petitioner by means of impugned order. One is dismissal from service and the other is a recovery of the amount determined in the enquiry and in view of the Judgment of the Full Bench of this court rendered in the case of Pancham Ram Yadav Vs. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. And Another, reported in [2019(9) ADJ,1 two punishments cannot be awarded only because the two punishments can be awarded under Rule 83 of the U.P. Cooperative Employees, Rules,1980 framed under Regulation 102 of the U.P. Cooperative Employees Regulations, 1975, under which only one punishment can be awarded. He further submits that no enquiry has been held after fixing date, time and place under intimation to the petitioner and only the petitioner was called for personal hearing by means of letter dated 06-04-2021 on 16-04-2021 and in response thereof, the petitioner had appeared on the date fixed and demanded certain documents, which were not provided to the petitioner despite the specific documents referred, and the enquiry report was submitted. He further submits that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18-06-2021 pursuant to the enquiry report.The petitioner time and again demanded certain documents to submit reply to the show cause notice, but, the same were not provided to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had submitted an explanation, but, by means of the letter dated 19-09-2021, which was duly received on 29-09-2022, the impugned order has been passed without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner stating that the petitioner had not submitted any reply despite the opportunity of hearing afforded to him, whereas the order was passed after about two months of submission of the explanation by the petitioner.
On the basis of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not tenable and liable to be quashed.
Sri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that two punishments have been awarded to the petitioner, is misconceived because only after arriving at the conclusion that there is an embezzlement of huge amount, punishment of dismissal has been awarded by the order dated 04-11-2022. However, the endorsement for recovery of the loss caused to the Sangh in accordance with law cannot be said to be a punishment awarded by the impugned order. He further submits that it is apparent from the order dated 10-12-2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 24093 (S/S) of 2020 that the petitioner had only challenged the order dated 20-11-2019 to the extent of his suspension. Because the order does not reflect that the petitioner has alleged the order in regard to initiation of enquiry against him. However, it has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Matter requires consideration.
Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file Counter Affidavit.
Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this case in the third week of January,2023 showing name of Sri Shireesh Kumar, Advocate, as counsel for respondents.
(Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 1.12.2022 AKS