JAI PRAKASH SAINI versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, U.P. COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 4 S.C.R. 286 · Decided: 01-04-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KAROL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 4 S.C.R. 286 : 2026 INSC 305
Jai Prakash Saini  
v. 
Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4130 of 2026)
01 April 2026
[Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
In the instant case, the department had not produced any witness 
in the enquiry even though the charges levelled upon the appellant 
were denied by him. Whether the enquiry stood vitiated.
Headnotes†
U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 – U.P. Cooperative 
Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 – regn. 85 – 
Employees Service Rules, 1980 of U.P. Cooperative Federation 
Limited – r.84 – Dismissal from service – Violation of principles 
of natural justice – Appellant was posted as the in-charge of 
the paddy procurement centre at U.P. Cooperative Federation 
Limited – He was served a charge-sheet alleging, inter alia, 
that as the in-charge of the centre he had purchased 1946.60 
quintals of paddy from farmers for delivery to M/s Pashupati 
Nath for de-husking, but delivery was short by 1093.60 
quintals – Departmental enquiry began – Vide supplementary 
charge sheet it is alleged that appellant embezzled Rs. 2,00,850 
by showing purchases of 5000 sacks of de-husked paddy for 
storage – Charges proved – Appellant was dismissed from 
service and a direction to recover the amount was issued – 
Writ petition filed before the High Court was dismissed – 
Appellant, inter alia, contends that not even a single witness 
was examined in support of the charges and no oral enquiry 
was held as required by the extant service rules – Correctness:
Held: It is settled that unless the charged employee accepts his 
guilt in clear terms, an enquiry on the charges drawn against him 
would have to be held – In the enquiry, the employer /department 
would have to take steps first to lead evidence against the 
workmen/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to 
* Author
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 
287
Jai Prakash Saini v.  
Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors.
cross examine those witnesses – Only thereafter, the workmen / 
delinquent shall be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence 
and/ or submit an explanation about the evidence led against him – 
Even in a case based solely on documentary evidence, unless the 
relied upon documents are admitted by the charged employee, a 
witness would have to be examined to prove those documents 
and when so examined, the witness would have to be tendered 
for cross-examination – In the instant case, the department had 
not produced any witness in the enquiry even though the charges 
levelled upon the appellant were denied by him – Therefore, in 
view of this court, the enquiry stood vitiated – Once the enquiry 
stood vitiated, the consequential order of punishment/recovery 
cannot be sustained – Impugned judgment of the High Court is 
set aside – The order of dismissal and consequential recovery is 
also set aside – Liberty granted to the Federation to hold a de 
novo enquiry. [Paras 17, 18]
Case Law Cited
Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Limited & Another v. Raghunath 
Singh Rana & Others [2016] 7 SCR 86 : (2016) 12 SCC 204; Sur 
Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. Workmen, [1964] 3 SCR 
616 : AIR 1963 SC 1914 : 1963 SCC OnLine SC 97; State of 
Uttaranchal & Ors. v. Kharak Singh, [2008] 12 SCR 54 : (2008) 
8 SCC 236 – referred to.
List of Acts
U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965; U.P. Cooperative Societies 
Employees Service Regulations, 1975; Employees Service Rules, 
1980 of U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited; Evidence Act, 1872.
List of Keywords
Violation of principles of natural justice; De-novo enquiry;  
No oral hearing; Witnesses not examined; Dismissal of employee; 
Opportunity to cross examine; Enquiry vitiated.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4130 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2019 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in SB No. 12353 of 2016.
288
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Rajiv Srivastava, Ms. Garima Srivastava, Arpit Shukla, Ms. Gargi 
Srivastava.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Gaurav Dhingra, Sunny Choudhary, Mayur Chaturvedi, Ayush 
Singh.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Manoj Misra, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court1 dated 
12.04.2019 whereby the writ petition2 of the appellant impugning the 
order dated 30.11.2015 dismissing hi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.