Allahabad High Court
Kamlesh Kumar Chakarabarti vs State Of U.P. Thru ... on 7 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 20 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5588 of 2016 Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Chakarabarti Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Co-Operative Govt.Of Up And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajan Mishra,Shishir Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Yadav,Shiresh Kumar Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shireesh Kumar learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and 3 and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent State.
By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.10.2014 and appellate order dated 24.6.2015 contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 to the petition respectively. He has further prays for a mandamus to opposite parties to provide all consequential benefits to him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that by the impugned order, four punishments have been awarded to the petitioner; 1. recovery of Rs.5,06,732/- by deducting 1/3 part of his salary; 2. stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect; 3. one special adverse entry; and, 4. No payment of salary or allowances for suspension period except subsistence allowance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Regulation 84 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations 1975"), which is quoted below:-
"84. Penalties.--(i) 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 any one of the following penalties :
(a) censure.
(b) withholding of increment.
(c) fine on an employee of Category IV (peon, chaukidar etc.),
(d) recovery from pay or security deposit to compensate in whole or in part for any pecuniary loss caused to the Co-operative Society by the employee's conduct,
(e) reduction in rank or grade held substantively by the employee,
(f) removal from service, or
(g) dismissal from service."
A bare perusal of the Regulation 84 of Regulations 1975 that only one punishment can be awarded. In the present case, the disciplinary authority has awarded three punishment which is apparent on the face of the impugned order. Since the Regulations, 1975 provide service conditions, therefore, it is holding the field. Accordingly, I am of the view that as per Regulation 84, only one punishment can be imposed and the punishing authority has committed error in imposing four punishments by the impugned order.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned dated 24.6.2015 contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 to the petition are quashed. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority O.P. No.3, to take a fresh decision in the light of the observations made hereinabove and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. It is made clear that no observations have been made on the merit of the case except the interpretation of Regulation 84.
Order Date :- 7.2.2023 Rajneesh JR-PS)