Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is decided at the admission stage.
The petitioner being aggrieved with the order of punishment dated 31.07.2019 passed under Regulation 85(1)(f) of the U.P. Cooperative Dairy Federation Employees Service Regulations, 2010 (for short, '2010 Regulations'), a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, as well as the approval that had been granted to the same vide order dated 30.07.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after due inquiry there was a recommendation by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Managing Director for imposition of a major penalty as specified under Regulation 85(1)(f) of 2010 Regulations i.e. reduction in rank or grade held substantively by the petitioner. The said recommendation of punishment was approved by one Dr. Sudhir M. Bobde, who was acting as Milk Commissioner as well as the Registrar. The said approval was required in terms of Regulation 88 of 2010 Regulations, which provides that no penalty as prescribed under Regulation 85 (e) to (g) can be passed except with the prior approval of the Registrar. After the approval of the recommendation vide order dated 30.07.2019, the impugned punishment order dated 31.07.2019 has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority/Appointing Authority of reversion of the petitioner which is a penalty as specified under Regulation 85(1)(f) of 2010 Regulations.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Chairman Administrative Committee, who incidentally was one Sri Sudhir M. Bobdewas perfectly empowered to recommend such a punishment but the said punishment could only be imposed after its approval by the Registrar and the Registrar i.e. Dr. Sudhir M. Bobde, was the same person, who was acting as Managing Director. As such, in the interest of justice and fair play, Dr. Sudhir M. Bobde should have refrained himself from approving the said punishment order which he himself had recommended. Consequently even if the approval was granted by the Registrar, the said punishment order being also issued by means of order dated 31.07.2019 and that too by the same person i.e. Dr. Sudhir M. Bobde the same would be against all rules of fair play and rules of natural justice and consequently impugned punishment order and approval as passed by the respondents, copies of which are Annexures 1 and 2 to the petition, are patently vitiated in the eyes of law.
In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Jagpal Singh vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No.34227 (SS) of 2018 decided on 17.05.2019 wherein in similar circumstances this Court has been pleased to set-aside the punishment order and its approval which had been granted by the same person i.e. Dr. Sudhir M. Bobde. Copy of the said judgment has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition.
It is also contended that the said judgment has been affirmed in Special Appeal Defective No.344 of 2019 filed by the Chairman Administrative Committee U.P. Milk Union and Dairy Federation Centralized Services, whereby the Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 26.04.2019. Copy of the said judgment has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.
Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, it is reiterated that once Dr. Sudhir M. Bobde was the Chairman Administrative Committee and had proposed the said punishment consequently while Dr. Sudhir M. Bobde was himself acting as Registrar there was no occasion for him to have himself approved the said recommendation and taking this into consideration it is apparent that both punishment order and its approval are patently vitiated in the eyes of law.
On the other hand, Sri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for the respondents, do not dispute the aforesaid factual position as well as the law laid down by this Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra). However, Sri Patel submits that Dr. Sudhir M. Bobde while acting as Registrar was acting in different capacity, as such, merely because he had proposed the punishment while acting as Disciplinary Authority would not negate the action that has been taken by him in the capacity of acting as a Registrar.
Having heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and having perused the records, what clearly comes out is that Dr. Sudhir M. Bobde, who was acting as Disciplinary Authority/Appointing Authority and Registrar, both, had himself proceeded to initially recommend a punishment against the petitioner, thereafter approved the same while acting as Registrar and subsequent thereto Dr. Sudhir M. Bobde had himself proceeded to pass the impugned punishment order. Such action on the part of Sudhir M. Bobde while acting as Disciplinary Authority and approving authority in the capacity of the Registrar cannot be said to be legally sustainable in the eyes of law taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra). The objection as taken by Sri Pankaj Patel has already been considered threadbare by this Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra).
Accordingly, with the consent of parties, the impugned order dated 31.07.2019, copies of which are Annexure 1, is set-aside. Consequences to follow.
Liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law and the prescribed Regulations.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Pachhere/-