Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 52 (ALL)

Lalji Yadav v. State Of U. P.

2020-01-06

ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

body2020
JUDGMENT : Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 19.02.2014 passed by respondent no. 3 and 11.10.1985 passed by respondent no. 4. 2. Facts, as disclosed in the writ petition, are that petitioner was appointed as Secretary in a Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society (hereinafter referred as 'PACCS') on 07.01.1977. He was transferred from Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited Purkhipur, Block Mauaima to Sadhan Sahkari Limited Ibrahimpur, Block Kaudihar, District Allahabad on 26.07.1984. He was placed under suspension for embezzlement done by him while working as Secretary at Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited Purkhipur as well as not handing over the charge of dead stock and other records on 31.01.1985. It appears that the Additional District Cooperative Officer, Soraon was appointed the Inquiry Officer as petitioner did not hand over the charge of the society in question nor presented himself before Head Office. The Chief Development Officer, Allahabad on 31.05.1985 exercising power under Section 37 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1965') proceeded to pass orders to seize the records of the society, which were likely to be tempered. Despite the orders, the petitioner did not hand over charge and no inquiry could be proceeded. However, the Inquiry Officer on 01.07.1985 submitted his report on basis of certain records made available by a Clerk of society concerned, who produced whatever was available with him. 3. It was also found by Member of District Administrative Committee, PACCS as well as Regional Manager of U.P. Cooperative Bank Limited that petitioner had embezzled more than Rs. 50,000/-and further had withdrawn Rs. 26,947/-in his personal name from the funds of the society. Petitioner on 11.03.1985 had accepted the fact that as his wife was ill for last six months he had to take advance from the society and further prayed that in case his suspension was revoked he would deposit the entire amount within two or three months. It appears that District Administrative Committee in its meeting on 12.03.1985 took decision which was conveyed to petitioner on 22.03.1985 that in case he deposits 50% of the embezzled amount within a week and the documents of Sadhan Sahkari Limited Ibrahimpur are audited by Assistant Development Cooperative Officer/Additional District Cooperative Officer, Soraon, his suspension would be kept in abeyance. It appears that District Administrative Committee in its meeting on 12.03.1985 took decision which was conveyed to petitioner on 22.03.1985 that in case he deposits 50% of the embezzled amount within a week and the documents of Sadhan Sahkari Limited Ibrahimpur are audited by Assistant Development Cooperative Officer/Additional District Cooperative Officer, Soraon, his suspension would be kept in abeyance. Further on 01.08.1985 a notice was published in Hindi Newspaper 'Amrit Prabhat' that petitioner should hand over the entire charge by 10.08.1985 at the Head Office otherwise his services will stand terminated. Despite the said publication, petitioner did not hand over the charge and, thereafter, in the meeting of District Administrative Committee held on 31.08.1985 resolution no. 5 was passed holding petitioner guilty for embezzlement of the funds of the society as well as not handing over the charge and retaining the documents with him and was dismissed from service. 4. An F.I.R. was also lodged against petitioner as Case Crime No. 16 of 1986 under Section 409 and 201 IPC at Police Station Nawabganj, District Allahabad. It appears that during pendency of criminal case, Sadhan Sahkari Limited approached the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P. at Allahabad Division under Section 70 of the Act of 1965 for arbitration but the case of the society was rejected by the Arbitrator on technical grounds. Meanwhile, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar on 30.03.2013 acquitted petitioner in criminal case no. 13084 of 2009 (State of U.P. Vs. Lalji Yadav). Petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 58091 of 2013 seeking reinstatement in service on basis of his acquittal in criminal case. However, this Court on 23.10.2013 directed respondent no. 3 to consider the representation dated 30.04.2013 filed by petitioner. Respondent no. 3 on 19.10.2014 rejected the representation of petitioner on the ground that he was suspended for embezzlement while he was working as Secretary, Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited Purkhipur and despite his transfer order he did not join at the transferred place, neither he handed over the charge nor the documents of the society in question. Moreover, the District Administrative Committee had given him opportunity of depositing half of the amount and reporting at the society to which he was transferred but petitioner failed to do so, and after making publication of notice in newspaper the District Administrative Committee proceeded to terminate his services. 5. Moreover, the District Administrative Committee had given him opportunity of depositing half of the amount and reporting at the society to which he was transferred but petitioner failed to do so, and after making publication of notice in newspaper the District Administrative Committee proceeded to terminate his services. 5. Sri M.C. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, has submitted that as the arbitration filed by Sadhan Sahkari Limited was rejected by the Arbitrator and petitioner being acquitted by competent criminal Court of charges levelled against him, he was entitled for reinstatement in service. 6. Sri Shivaji Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, on the other hand, contended that petitioner had been charged in departmental inquiry, against which he has preferred appeal on 15.12.1985, which was dismissed on 31.01.1986. It is also stated in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit that petitioner was found guilty of embezzlement of Rs. 76,947.99/-and the appeal against the said order already been dismissed, no interference is required by this Court, at this stage. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. It is not in dispute that petitioner was transferred from Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited Purkhipur, Block Mauaima to Sadhan Sahkari Limited Ibrahimpur, Block Kaudihar, District Allahabad on 26.07.1984. Despite the said fact, he did not hand over the charge as Secretary of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited Purkhipur, thus, he was put under suspension on 31.01.1985. The departmental inquiry could not proceed due to the fact that the documents in question was in custody of petitioner, however, on basis of documents, so made available by Clerk of the society, the Additional District Cooperative Officer conducted the inquiry. As petitioner was under suspension he had given a letter on 11.03.1984 accepting the fact that the amount withdrawn from the funds of society was in fact advance which he had taken, and was ready to deposit half of the amount immediately and balance amount in two or three months. As petitioner was under suspension he had given a letter on 11.03.1984 accepting the fact that the amount withdrawn from the funds of society was in fact advance which he had taken, and was ready to deposit half of the amount immediately and balance amount in two or three months. Acting on the said letter, the District Administrative Committee resolved on 12.03.1985 directing petitioner to deposit half of the amount within a week and get the documents of the society at which he was posted to be inspected by the Additional District Cooperative Officer concerned but petitioner failed to deposit the amount, and also failed to appear before the Additional District Cooperative Officer Soraon for inspection of documents. 9. As petitioner was avoiding in making payments the District Administrative Committee got a notice published in daily newspaper 'Amrit Prabhat' on 01.10.1985 and ten days further time was provided to petitioner, as a last opportunity, to comply with the decision taken by District Administrative Committee earlier, but petitioner failed to do so. District Administrative Committee was left with no option but to proceed against petitioner and on 31.08.1985 petitioner was held liable for embezzlement of funds and stocks at both Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited Purkhipur and Ibrahimpur and also of not handing over charge and retaining documents. Appeal filed by petitioner against the said order was also dismissed. 10. As far as the contention of petitioner that he was acquitted in criminal case and arbitration case filed by Sadhan Sahkari Limited was rejected by the Arbitrator is concerned, same is of no consequence as petitioner was held liable in disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for his misconduct, embezzlement and retaining of records of the societies in question. As present petition has been filed for relief of reinstatement in service, petitioner has not made out any case as it has been accepted by him that the money withdrawn from the funds of the society was the advance taken by him for which he had himself agreed to deposit the same if permitted by the District Administrative Committee within a short time, but failed to do so. The District Administrative Committee itself granted opportunity twice and even made publication in newspaper, but petitioner failed to comply leverage granted to him for which this Court finds no ground for indulgence. 11. Writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.