ROTAS KUMARS Vs. CANE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 9th October, 1998 contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition by which the petitioner was categorised 'B' in terms of Regulation 21 of the U. P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulation. 1975 on the ground that the petitioner was categorised pursuant to an allegation related to the crushing season 1995-96. Mr. N. L. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no categorisation could be made in 1998 on the basis of allegation related to a period of 1995-96. He has. therefore, challenged the order relating to the finding of guilt as against him. He relied on Regulation 27 of the said Regulation in support of his contention.

(2.) Mr. P. M. N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that categorisation can be done under Regulation 21 even irrespective of any disciplinary proceeding. The disciplinary proceeding may lapse on account of expiry of time as provided in Regulation 27 which prescribes that the disciplinary proceeding is to be completed by the end of the crushing season and if not. In that event it would be deemed to have been automatically dropped but that will not preclude the respondent authority to proceed under Regulation 21. It may affect the enquiry but not the categorisation.

(3.) I have heard both the counsel at length.