U.P. COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD. versus RAM SINGH YADAV AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 622 · Decided: 01-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD. 
v. 
RAM SINGH YADAV AND ORS. 
DECEMBER I, 1997 
B 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
UP. Cooperative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975 : 
C Regulations 19, 84 and 85. Termination or removal from service-Inference 
of-Employee's service terminated by Employer on ground that he absconded 
from 21. 7.1977-However, neither one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof 
given to employee as prescribed in Regulation 19-No departmental enquiry 
held-Employee did not work during the period from 21. 7.1977 to 3. 7.1989, 
D the date of High Court judgment-Held, Jn the absence of departmental 
enquiry, termination was in fact removal from service-Employee, therfore, 
entitled to be reinstated but it was open to the Employer to initiate disciplinary 
proceedings against him-However, employee not entitled to pay and 
allowances since he did not work during the period from 21.7.1977 to 
3.7.1989-U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, S. 122. 
E 
Misconduct-Wilful absence-Disciplinary proceedings-initiation of-
During pendency of appeal-Employee's services terminated by Employer on 
ground of wilful absence-High Court set aside termination-Employer 
appealed in Supreme Court against High Court's judgment-Employee again 
absented himself from duty during pendency of appeal-Held : It is always 
F open to the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee 
for his remaining absent unauthorisedly or not joining duty during the 
pendericy of the appeal, if circumstances warrant. 
Misconduct-Wilfal absence-Employee contended that he did not join 
new posting on transfer on the ground that he was wrongly reverted from 
G Assistant to Chaukidar-Held : this was not a valid ground for not joining 
his new posting-Further, employee's claim for po'st of Assistant otherwise 
also not val id. 
The appellant-Federation terminated the services of the respondent 
H from 21-7-1997 on the ground of wilful absence in that he abandoned his 
622 
U.P. CO-OP.FEDERATION v. R.S. YADAV 
623 
services. However, respondent was not given one month's notice or salary in A 
lieu thereof as prescribed in Regulation 19 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies 
Employees' Service Regulations, 1975. While in service the respondent was 
transferred but be did not join his new posting because, according to him, 
he was wrongly reverted from Assistant to Chaukidar. On appeal the High 
Court set aside the order of termination on the ground that no disciplinary B 
proceedings were initiated against the respondent and his service could not 
have been terminated without there being an enquiry officer appointed and 
no enquiry ever having been conducted against the respondent on the alleged 
ground of his abandoning his job. Being aggrieved the appellant-Federation 
preferred the present appeal. During the pendency of this appeal the 
respondent again absented himself from duty. The respondent also had not C 
worked from 21-7-1977 to the date of the High Court judgment i.e., 
3-7-1989. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The impugned order of termination of service of the 
respondent is in fact removal of the respondent from the service since D 
procedure prescribed in Regulation 19,84 and 85 of the U.P. Cooperative 
Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975 have not been met. There 
is no charge sheet, no enquiry officer and no enquiry proceedings. Therefore, 
the respondent is entitled to be reinstated though it does not precl.ude the 
appellant form holding an enquiry or passing proper order in accordance E 
with law. However, since the respondent has not worked from 21-7-1977 till 
the impugned judgment dated 3-7-1989 of the High Court the respondent 
would not be entitled to pay and allowances for that period. This is so as the 
respondent is at fault in not joining his new posting without any valid reason. 
. 
[632-G-H; 633-A-B) 
2. Admittedly, during the pendency of the appeal the respondent again 
absented himself from duty. The appellant chose not to take action against 
the respondent because of the pendency of this appeal. It is always open to 
the appellant to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent for 
his remaining absent unauthorisedly or not joining duty during the pendency 
F 
of this appeal, if circumstances so warrant. (632-D) 
G 
3. For not joining the duty the respondent appears to take shelter on 
his plea that he could not have been

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