Dashrath Prasad Yadav v. Allahabad District Co-operative Back Other), which was disposed of by order dated

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satyam Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "(i) A suitable writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 25.04.2018. (ii) A suitable writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay entire post retiral benefits which is deducted by impugned order dated 25.04.2018 with 18% interest. (iii) A suitable writ order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV employee in the year 1974 in the District Co- operative Bank Limited, Allahabad. Subsequently, in the year 1980, he was given Ad-hoc appointment to a Class-III post. He continued his service to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and there being no complaint was ever made against him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the service of the petitioner is governed by the U.P. Co-operative Society Employees 2 WRIA No. 17367 of 2018 Service Regulations, 1975 (referred to as in "Rules of 1975"). When the petitioner was posted at Meja Branch of District Cooperative Bank Limited, Allahabad, he was placed under suspension by order dated

30.05.2000 and a charge sheet was given to him on 24.10.2000, to which he submitted his reply on 08.10.2000. In the aforesaid reply, the petitioner requested for certain documents which were not supplied to him. The Inquiry Officer submitted an inquiry report, which was followed by a show cause notice dated 17.05.2002, issued by the Secretary/General Manager of the Bank. Pursuant to a resolution dated 17.04.2002 passed by the Committee of Management, the petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice on 06.06.2002. A supplementary charge sheet dated 26.07.2002 was also served upon the petitioner, although the inquiry had already been completed on 21.05.2001. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33788 of 2003 challenging the order dated 26.04.2003, by which, after conclusion of the inquiry the petitioner was dismissed from service. The Hon'ble Court vide order dated 31.08.2006 remanded the matter back for conducting a fresh inquiry after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in respect of the supplementary charge sheet and that the inquiry be concluded in accordance with law.

5. The petitioner thereafter filed a Special Appeal No.1266 of 2006 (Dashrath Prasad Yadav vs. Allahabad District Co-operative Back & Other), which was disposed of by order dated 30.10.2006 with a direction to conclude the inquiry expeditiously. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his reply to the supplementary charge sheet. However, the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry behind the back of the petitioner and submitted an inquiry report on 30.06.2008, which was not served upon the petitioner. The aforesaid inquiry report was challenged by means of filing a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.65165 of 2011 and the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to ensure that the inquiry against the petitioner is brought to its logical end and strictly in accordance with law at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of that order.

6. The petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Contempt Application No.1191 of 3 WRIA No. 17367 of 2018 2013 (Dashrath Prasad Yadav v. Onkar Yadav, Secretary/General Manager of Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Limited and Others), during its pendency the respondent no.3 passed an order dated 13.08.2013 directing to reinstate the petitioner in service, subject to three conditions i.e. (i) no further stipend would be paid to the petitioner for the suspension period, (ii) the petitioner would be paid the salary, which he was receiving, (iii) the petitioner would either deposit the amount or face the recovery of the amount due from his salary. Accordingly, the petitioner joined on 13.08.2013. As the petitioner was not being paid salary during the suspension period from 30.05.2000 till 12.08.2013, therefore, aggrieved by the aforesaid he filed another Writ Petition No.33788 of 2003, which was disposed of with a direction to conclude the inquiry after following the proper procedure as provided under law and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, finding that no reason was disclosed, while passing the punishment order, relying upon such an inquiry report which was conducted behind the back of the petitioner.

7. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2013, the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.30929 of 2014, which was decided by order dated

20.07.2017, wherein after discussing the flaws in the inquiry, the following order was passed:- "........................It has been informed by the petitioner that although he was reinstated, he would stand retired on 31st July, 2017. In case, the petitioner has retired, then the authorities are directed to consider payment of his retiral dues provisionally. Since, the punishment order and the inquiry report has been set aside by this Court on the ground that respondents have failed to comply with the detailed directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and also failure to comply with the settled position of law with regard to conduct of disciplinary proceedings and this Court has not entered into the merits of the charges and the reply of the petitioner on each of the charges, the authorities are directed to take appropriate decision as per Chapter VIII of Financial Hand Book, Volume II, Part II to IV and proceed accordingly within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the competent authority."

8. Accordingly, the authorities passed the impugned order which is under 4 WRIA No. 17367 of 2018 challenge in the present writ petition.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed without giving any notice or an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without realizing the fact that the inquiry, on the basis of which the punishment order was passed, was not in accordance with law, same has also been observed by the Hon'ble Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner. The other grounds which have been consideration, regarding the flaws of the inquiry has also been observed by the writ court, accordingly, the order impugned was set aside. Meaning thereby, the petitioner was to be given an opportunity of hearing and after a proper inquiry in accordance with law, the punishment should have been imposed. He further submits that though a direction has been issued by the writ court to consider the payment of retiral dues provisionally and the authorities were directed to take appropriate decision as per Chapter VIII of Financial Hand Book, Volume II, Part II to IV and proceed accordingly within three months. The impugned order has been passed not taking into consideration the aforesaid direction as passed by the Court. He further submits that as per the Rule 54-A Clause (1) of the Fundamental Rules, where the dismissal of the Government Employee is set aside by the Court of law, such Employee must be reinstated without holding any further inquiry and the period of absence shall be treated as duty for all the purpose and the employee shall be paid salary and allowances in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Rule 2 and 3 subject to direction of the Court. Hence, the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the directions of the Court, therefore, the aforesaid order may be set aside.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents clarifying the order passed by the Court in Writ Petition No.30929 of 2014 (Dashrath Prasad Yadav vs. Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd. And 2 Others) dated

20.07.2017, submits that the petitioner, who was reinstated for the purposes of inquiry, he would stand retired on 31.07.2017. A direction was issued to the authorities to consider the payment of his retiral dues provisionally following the aforesaid direction passed in the impugned order. The Court had not entered into the merits of the charges and the reply of the petitioner on each of the charges, and the authorities are directed to take appropriate decision as per the provisions of Financial 5 WRIA No. 17367 of 2018 Hand Book.

11. The grounds as taken by the petitioner have been vehemently denied by the learned counsel for the respondents in his counter affidavit stating that the petition has been filed on misconceived grounds. As regards the provisions as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Rule 54-A Clause (i), the aforesaid is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as the punishment order has not been set aside on merits as has been clearly mentioned in the order passed by the writ court. The operative portion of the order is quoted above.

12. In view of the above, no interference is called for, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

13. Needless to say that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the calculations, he may approach the authorities concerned requesting to consider his grievance, which would be considered in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

14. No orders as to costs. October 10, 2025 Rahul. (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satyam Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "(i) A suitable writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 25.04.2018. (ii) A suitable writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay entire post retiral benefits which is deducted by impugned order dated 25.04.2018 with 18% interest. (iii) A suitable writ order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Class-IV employee in the year 1974 in the District Co- operative Bank Limited, Allahabad. Subsequently, in the year 1980, he was given Ad-hoc appointment to a Class-III post. He continued his service to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and there being no complaint was ever made against him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the service of the petitioner is governed by the U.P. Co-operative Society Employees 2 WRIA No. 17367 of 2018 Service Regulations, 1975 (referred to as in "Rules of 1975"). When the petitioner was posted at Meja Branch of District Cooperative Bank Limited, Allahabad, he was placed under suspension by order dated

30.05.2000 and a charge sheet was given to him on 24.10.2000, to which he submitted his reply on 08.10.2000. In the aforesaid reply, the petitioner requested for certain documents which were not supplied to him. The Inquiry Officer submitted an inquiry report, which was followed by a show cause notice dated 17.05.2002, issued by the Secretary/General Manager of the Bank. Pursuant to a resolution dated 17.04.2002 passed by the Committee of Management, the petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice on 06.06.2002. A supplementary charge sheet dated 26.07.2002 was also served upon the petitioner, although the inquiry had already been completed on 21.05.2001. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33788 of 2003 challenging the order dated 26.04.2003, by which, after conclusion of the inquiry the petitioner was dismissed from service. The Hon'ble Court vide order dated 31.08.2006 remanded the matter back for conducting a fresh inquiry after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in respect of the supplementary charge sheet and that the inquiry be concluded in accordance with law.

5. The petitioner thereafter filed a Special Appeal No.1266 of 2006 (Dashrath Prasad Yadav vs. Allahabad District Co-operative Back & Other), which was disposed of by order dated 30.10.2006 with a direction to conclude the inquiry expeditiously. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his reply to the supplementary charge sheet. However, the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry behind the back of the petitioner and submitted an inquiry report on 30.06.2008, which was not served upon the petitioner. The aforesaid inquiry report was challenged by means of filing a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.65165 of 2011 and the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to ensure that the inquiry against the petitioner is brought to its logical end and strictly in accordance with law at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of that order.

6. The petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Contempt Application No.1191 of 3 WRIA No. 17367 of 2018 2013 (Dashrath Prasad Yadav v. Onkar Yadav, Secretary/General Manager of Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Limited and Others), during its pendency the respondent no.3 passed an order dated 13.08.2013 directing to reinstate the petitioner in service, subject to three conditions i.e. (i) no further stipend would be paid to the petitioner for the suspension period, (ii) the petitioner would be paid the salary, which he was receiving, (iii) the petitioner would either deposit the amount or face the recovery of the amount due from his salary. Accordingly, the petitioner joined on 13.08.2013. As the petitioner was not being paid salary during the suspension period from 30.05.2000 till 12.08.2013, therefore, aggrieved by the aforesaid he filed another Writ Petition No.33788 of 2003, which was disposed of with a direction to conclude the inquiry after following the proper procedure as provided under law and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, finding that no reason was disclosed, while passing the punishment order, relying upon such an inquiry report which was conducted behind the back of the petitioner.

7. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2013, the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.30929 of 2014, which was decided by order dated

20.07.2017, wherein after discussing the flaws in the inquiry, the following order was passed:- "........................It has been informed by the petitioner that although he was reinstated, he would stand retired on 31st July, 2017. In case, the petitioner has retired, then the authorities are directed to consider payment of his retiral dues provisionally. Since, the punishment order and the inquiry report has been set aside by this Court on the ground that respondents have failed to comply with the detailed directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and also failure to comply with the settled position of law with regard to conduct of disciplinary proceedings and this Court has not entered into the merits of the charges and the reply of the petitioner on each of the charges, the authorities are directed to take appropriate decision as per Chapter VIII of Financial Hand Book, Volume II, Part II to IV and proceed accordingly within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the competent authority."

8. Accordingly, the authorities passed the impugned order which is under 4 WRIA No. 17367 of 2018 challenge in the present writ petition.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed without giving any notice or an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without realizing the fact that the inquiry, on the basis of which the punishment order was passed, was not in accordance with law, same has also been observed by the Hon'ble Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner. The other grounds which have been consideration, regarding the flaws of the inquiry has also been observed by the writ court, accordingly, the order impugned was set aside. Meaning thereby, the petitioner was to be given an opportunity of hearing and after a proper inquiry in accordance with law, the punishment should have been imposed. He further submits that though a direction has been issued by the writ court to consider the payment of retiral dues provisionally and the authorities were directed to take appropriate decision as per Chapter VIII of Financial Hand Book, Volume II, Part II to IV and proceed accordingly within three months. The impugned order has been passed not taking into consideration the aforesaid direction as passed by the Court. He further submits that as per the Rule 54-A Clause (1) of the Fundamental Rules, where the dismissal of the Government Employee is set aside by the Court of law, such Employee must be reinstated without holding any further inquiry and the period of absence shall be treated as duty for all the purpose and the employee shall be paid salary and allowances in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Rule 2 and 3 subject to direction of the Court. Hence, the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the directions of the Court, therefore, the aforesaid order may be set aside.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents clarifying the order passed by the Court in Writ Petition No.30929 of 2014 (Dashrath Prasad Yadav vs. Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd. And 2 Others) dated

20.07.2017, submits that the petitioner, who was reinstated for the purposes of inquiry, he would stand retired on 31.07.2017. A direction was issued to the authorities to consider the payment of his retiral dues provisionally following the aforesaid direction passed in the impugned order. The Court had not entered into the merits of the charges and the reply of the petitioner on each of the charges, and the authorities are directed to take appropriate decision as per the provisions of Financial 5 WRIA No. 17367 of 2018 Hand Book.

11. The grounds as taken by the petitioner have been vehemently denied by the learned counsel for the respondents in his counter affidavit stating that the petition has been filed on misconceived grounds. As regards the provisions as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Rule 54-A Clause (i), the aforesaid is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as the punishment order has not been set aside on merits as has been clearly mentioned in the order passed by the writ court. The operative portion of the order is quoted above.

12. In view of the above, no interference is called for, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

13. Needless to say that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the calculations, he may approach the authorities concerned requesting to consider his grievance, which would be considered in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

14. No orders as to costs. October 10, 2025 Rahul. (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad