Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent-Corporation being satisfied with the performance of the petitioner's Distributorship as also upon verification of the requisite documents/ papers submitted by Sri Ravi Pandey for the purposes of renewal of his Distributorship, had renewed the petitioner's Distributorship and a fresh agreement/ renewal agreement dated 25.10.2016 was executed in between Sri Ravi Pandey and the respondent-Corporation. While the petitioner's Distributorship was running smoothly, in order to harass him, his erstwhile employee namely Rajesh Pandey had filed a false complaint dated 16.10.2018, regarding the petitioner having not complied with the mandatory guidelines for the purposes of grant of Distributorship in question. The respondent- Corporation had then issued a show cause notice dated 29.08.2019 to the petitioner herein for the purposes of seeking its reply regarding termination of the Distributorship in question Patna High Court CWJC No.7295 of 2020 dt.15-01-2021 on the ground that fabricated Bank statement and false educational certificates have been submitted by the proprietor of the petitioner firm and his father for the purposes of grant of the Distributorship in question. In the said show cause, it was alleged that though the proprietor of the petitioner firm in his application dated 17.02.2009 had mentioned that he had a balance of Rs. 20,40,000/- in his Savings Bank Account no. 014111 with Siwan Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Siwan, however upon confirmation from the said Bank, the balance in the said account has been found to be a meagre sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- as on 14.02.2009. In the said show cause notice dated 29.08.2019, it was also stated that the aforesaid Bank has also confirmed that the certificates dated 14.02.2009 and 09.03.2009 submitted by the proprietor of the petitioner firm in support of his financial status to the extent that he was having a balance of Rs. 20,40,000/- as on 14.02.2009 in his Bank Account as also the pass-book provided by him along with his application, had not been issued by the said office of the Bank in question. The petitioner is stated to have filed his show-cause reply, whereafter the respondent-Corporation by a detailed order dated 30.12.2019 had terminated the Distributorship of the petitioner situated at Kuchaikote, in violation of Clause no. 11 of the Distributorship Patna High Court CWJC No.7295 of 2020 dt.15-01-2021 Selection Guidelines dated 29.06.2007 and Clause no. 27(1) of the Distributorship Agreement dated 25.10.2016, relevant paragraphs whereof is reproduced herein below :-

22. From the letter of termination dated 30th December, 2019, it would appear that a show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner for two allegations; one being the submission of fabricated bank statement to show his financial Patna High Court CWJC No.7295 of 2020 dt.15-01-2021 stability and the other, submission of false educational certificate. After perusing the show-

As regards the reply of the respondent-Corporation, in the Patna High Court CWJC No.7295 of 2020 dt.15-01-2021 impugned order dated 03.06.2020, to the effect that on 23.10.2017 a complaint relating to submission of fabricated Bank statement was received by ER, Vigilance, which on investigation has been found to be substantiated leading to termination of Distributorship on 30.12.2019, it has been submitted that the said complaint dated 23.10.2017 has already stood closed since the allegations levelled by the complainant have not been found to be substantiated, as is apparent from the letter of the respondent-Corporation dated 09.02.2018.

19. As far as the reply of the respondent-Corporation in the impugned order dated 03.06.2020 to the effect that complaint dated 23.10.2017 regarding submission of fabricated Bank Patna High Court CWJC No.7295 of 2020 dt.15-01-2021 statement by the petitioner was received by the Vigilance Department of the respondent-Corporation which on investigation has been found to be substantiated, leading to termination of Distributorship on 30.12.2019, is concerned, this Court finds that the said issue has already stood determined by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by a Judgment dated 22.05.2020 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 559 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the order of termination of Distributorship dated 30.12.2019 has been found to be legal and valid. In fact, the allegation of the proprietor of the petitioner firm having submitted fabricated Bank documents in support of his financial status has also been found, upon investigation, to be true. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the said complaint received by the Vigilance had stood closed which is apparent from the letter of the respondent-Corporation dated 09.02.2018, is concerned, this Court finds that the complaint received by the Vigilance is dated 23.10.2017, however the subject referred to in the afore-said letter of the respondent- Corporation dated 09.02.2018 is with regard to the complaint dated 23.01.2018 and moreover the said letter dated 09.02.2018 would not have any bearing on the present case, inasmuch as a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated Patna High Court CWJC No.7295 of 2020 dt.15-01-2021 22.05.2020, passed in the case of the petitioner itself, has already come to a conclusion that fabricated Bank statement had been submitted by the petitioner and lastly, the said letter dated 09.02.2018 refers to field verification conducted in the month of March 2009, which admittedly was done on the basis of fabricated Bank statement and forged certificates submitted by the proprietor of the petitioner firm along with his application dated 17.02.2009, however subsequently, upon a detailed inquiry made and response sought from the Bank in question, it has transpired that the respondent-Bank had never issued the pass-book submitted by the proprietor of the petitioner firm or the certificates dated 14.02.2009 and 09.03.2009 as also has certified that the balance amount in the account of the proprietor of the petitioner firm as on 14.02.2009 was only a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- and the said amount had continued to be available in the Bank account of the proprietor of the petitioner firm till the date of interview, however the claim of the proprietor of the petitioner firm that a sum of Rs. 20,40,000/- was available in his Bank account, is not correct. In any view of the matter, since this aspect of the matter has already stood adjudicated and the order of termination dated 30.12.2019 has also been upheld by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 22.05.2020, Patna High Court CWJC No.7295 of 2020 dt.15-01-2021 passed in C.W.J.C. no. 559 of 2020, now it is too late in the day for the petitioner to raise such issues in the present writ petition and the petitioner cannot be permitted to circumvent the process of law as also it cannot be permitted to assail the order of termination dated 30.12.2019, in the garb of the present writ petition.