Suresh Tripathi vs U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd. Thru. Managing
Case Details
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-cooperative Federation Ltd. and perused the record. By the present writ petition, a challenge is laid to the order dated 17- 10-2024 as well as the order dated 29-08-2023, passed by the respondent nos. 2 & 3 respectively. Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 24-02-2015 and the petitioner was put under suspension and the enquiry officer was appointed and the matter proceeded. He submitted that the enquiry officer issued chargesheet on 20-05-2015 and a reply thereof, was also submitted by the petitioner and after giving the opportunity of personal hearing, on 28-10-2015, the petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer on 06-11-2015 and the additional evidences were also submitted on 23-11-2015. He submits that the enquiry officer submitted his report on 11-12-2015, before the disciplinary authority. He pointed out that there were as many as ten charges levelled against the petitioner; five charges were levelled in the first chargesheet and the other five charges, were levelled by way of a supplementary chargesheet. He submits that the enquiry report is 2 WRIA No. 4923 of 2025 evident that the except apart the lackness of supervision by the present petitioner, is no charge proved regarding any embezzlement or misappropriation of any amount of the respondent- corporation. He added that the disciplinary authority ignoring the finding of the enquiry officer, has passed the order and make liable the present petitioner for embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 51,39,336/-, though all over the discussion in the order impugned dated 29-08-2023, there is no evidence discussed that how the said duty/work was casted upon the petitioner and how the said amount has been embezzled by the petitioner. He also submitted that against the order dated 29-08-2023, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority, which in a very precise manner, has been decided on 17-10-2024, without categorically discussing the finding of the disciplinary authority or the charges thereof. Further argued that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority are against the settled proposition of law, as when the disciplinary authority reached to the conclusion that the enquiry officer has concluded the enquiry while not finding the petitioner involved in any embezzlement, he should have remitted back the matter to the enquiry officer to proceed afresh or he should himself consider the evidences available against the petitioner, which is badly missing in the impugned order dated 29-08-2015. He added that infact what could be gathered from the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority is that there was only the latches, if any, on the part of the petitioner regarding the supervisory work, which was to be done under the supervisory capacity of the petitioner. Concluding his arguments, he submits that the whole disciplinary proceeding including the order passed by the appellate authority vitiates in the eyes of law. Therefore, submission is that the orders impugned dated 29-08-2023 and 17-10-2024, may be quashed. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation has opposed the contentions aforesaid, but, he could not dispute the particular contention that once, the enquiry officer did not reach to the 3 WRIA No. 4923 of 2025 conclusion that any embezzlement is committed by the petitioner, how the disciplinary authority, without any discussion or evidence, can pass an order fixing the liability of the petitioner, for his involvement in committing embezzlement in collusion with other employees of the corporation. In addition, learned counsel for the respondent-corporation submits that even the enquiry officer has found the charge nos. 1 & 5 are proved and therefore, there is no erroneousnes or any ambiguity in the orders impugned. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the records as placed before this court, it is apparent that the petitioner was admittedly posted on a higher/supervisory post and the duty, which was casted upon him for dealing with the financial matters, was upon someone other. When this court examines the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority, it is apparent that while discussing with charge no. 5, there is not a single whisper that what duty was casted upon the petitioner and what evidence was gathered and how the involvement of the present petitioner is proved. It is superfluously said in the order that since the petitioner in a caveliar manner has acted upon and therefore, he is involved in the embezzlement. This court finds that this cannot be a full proof method so as to reach to the conclusion that any employee against whom the charge of embezzlement is levelled, was involved in committing such offence. This court has further gone into the order passed by the appellate authority dated 17-10-2024. The appellate authority has only stamped the order passed by the disciplinary authority and no finding has been recorded with respect to the discussion made in the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority has superfluously decided the appeal, which is apparent from the order itself. For the foregoing reasons and submissions, this court finds that the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 29-08-2023 as well 4 WRIA No. 4923 of 2025 as order passed by the appellate authority dated 17-10-2024, are unsustainable and consequently, both the orders dated 29-08-2023 and 17-10-2024, are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority concerned to take a fresh decision on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, in accordance with law, while adhering to the evidences available on record. Withe aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is allowed accordingly. October 10, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-cooperative Federation Ltd. and perused the record. By the present writ petition, a challenge is laid to the order dated 17- 10-2024 as well as the order dated 29-08-2023, passed by the respondent nos. 2 & 3 respectively. Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 24-02-2015 and the petitioner was put under suspension and the enquiry officer was appointed and the matter proceeded. He submitted that the enquiry officer issued chargesheet on 20-05-2015 and a reply thereof, was also submitted by the petitioner and after giving the opportunity of personal hearing, on 28-10-2015, the petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer on 06-11-2015 and the additional evidences were also submitted on 23-11-2015. He submits that the enquiry officer submitted his report on 11-12-2015, before the disciplinary authority. He pointed out that there were as many as ten charges levelled against the petitioner; five charges were levelled in the first chargesheet and the other five charges, were levelled by way of a supplementary chargesheet. He submits that the enquiry report is 2 WRIA No. 4923 of 2025 evident that the except apart the lackness of supervision by the present petitioner, is no charge proved regarding any embezzlement or misappropriation of any amount of the respondent- corporation. He added that the disciplinary authority ignoring the finding of the enquiry officer, has passed the order and make liable the present petitioner for embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 51,39,336/-, though all over the discussion in the order impugned dated 29-08-2023, there is no evidence discussed that how the said duty/work was casted upon the petitioner and how the said amount has been embezzled by the petitioner. He also submitted that against the order dated 29-08-2023, an appeal was preferred before the appellate authority, which in a very precise manner, has been decided on 17-10-2024, without categorically discussing the finding of the disciplinary authority or the charges thereof. Further argued that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority are against the settled proposition of law, as when the disciplinary authority reached to the conclusion that the enquiry officer has concluded the enquiry while not finding the petitioner involved in any embezzlement, he should have remitted back the matter to the enquiry officer to proceed afresh or he should himself consider the evidences available against the petitioner, which is badly missing in the impugned order dated 29-08-2015. He added that infact what could be gathered from the orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority is that there was only the latches, if any, on the part of the petitioner regarding the supervisory work, which was to be done under the supervisory capacity of the petitioner. Concluding his arguments, he submits that the whole disciplinary proceeding including the order passed by the appellate authority vitiates in the eyes of law. Therefore, submission is that the orders impugned dated 29-08-2023 and 17-10-2024, may be quashed. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation has opposed the contentions aforesaid, but, he could not dispute the particular contention that once, the enquiry officer did not reach to the 3 WRIA No. 4923 of 2025 conclusion that any embezzlement is committed by the petitioner, how the disciplinary authority, without any discussion or evidence, can pass an order fixing the liability of the petitioner, for his involvement in committing embezzlement in collusion with other employees of the corporation. In addition, learned counsel for the respondent-corporation submits that even the enquiry officer has found the charge nos. 1 & 5 are proved and therefore, there is no erroneousnes or any ambiguity in the orders impugned. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the records as placed before this court, it is apparent that the petitioner was admittedly posted on a higher/supervisory post and the duty, which was casted upon him for dealing with the financial matters, was upon someone other. When this court examines the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority, it is apparent that while discussing with charge no. 5, there is not a single whisper that what duty was casted upon the petitioner and what evidence was gathered and how the involvement of the present petitioner is proved. It is superfluously said in the order that since the petitioner in a caveliar manner has acted upon and therefore, he is involved in the embezzlement. This court finds that this cannot be a full proof method so as to reach to the conclusion that any employee against whom the charge of embezzlement is levelled, was involved in committing such offence. This court has further gone into the order passed by the appellate authority dated 17-10-2024. The appellate authority has only stamped the order passed by the disciplinary authority and no finding has been recorded with respect to the discussion made in the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority has superfluously decided the appeal, which is apparent from the order itself. For the foregoing reasons and submissions, this court finds that the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 29-08-2023 as well 4 WRIA No. 4923 of 2025 as order passed by the appellate authority dated 17-10-2024, are unsustainable and consequently, both the orders dated 29-08-2023 and 17-10-2024, are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority concerned to take a fresh decision on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, in accordance with law, while adhering to the evidences available on record. Withe aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is allowed accordingly. October 10, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench