TILAK RAM SINGH Vs. CANE COMMISSIONER U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the ground of certain lapses committed by the petitioner in the season 1995-96 when he was appointed as seasonal clerk, he was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding initiated on 9.7.1997. The disciplinary proceeding was concluded on 9.10.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. N.L.Pandey relying on Regulation 27 of the U.P Cane Co-operative Service Regulation 1975, contends that disciplinary proceeding in respect of a lapse committed during a particular season, is to be initiated and concluded before the end of the crushing season or within the time stipulated therein, whichever is latter, and in default such disciplinary proceeding shall be deemed to have been automatically dropped. Therefore, according to him, the lapse committed by the petitioner in crushing season 1995-96, cannot be gone into after the end of the said crushing season namely on 9.7.1997. He alternately argues that even if it can be so initiated, it has to be concluded within the time frame stipulated in Regulation 27 and in default the same shall be deemed to have been automatically dropped, after expiry of the crushing season. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there cannot be any jurisdiction to pass an order against the petitioner on 9.10.98 namely in the next season. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order being wholly without jurisdiction and a nullity, the petitioner should not be thrown to the process of appeal as provided in regulation 31. On these grounds he prays for quashing of the impugned order.

(2.) Mr. P.M.N. Singh, Learned Addl. Advocate General, On the other hand contends that regulation 31 provides for an appeal which is adequate alternative remedy, and in view of existence of such adequate remedy, this court sitting in writ jurisdiction should not enter into the questions which also requires investigation on merits. According to him, such a question have arisen in the case of Devendra Singh and others Vs. Chairman, District Cane Service Authority, Bijnor and others (Writ Petition No. 42588 of 1998, disposed of on 11.1.1999) Zerox copy of the certified copy of the said judgment has been produced by him in court. Relying on this decision, Mr. P.M.N. Singh contends that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy .He next contends that since the question is a question of fact, sitting in writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot enter into the question, therefore, the petitioner cannot obtain any relief by invoking writ jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) Mr. N.L. Pandey, however, has not addressed the Court on the merits of the case. He has confined his submission to the said question and contends that in view of patent absence of jurisdiction, it is not necessary that the petitioner should be thrown to the process of appeal when on the face of it, it is apparent that the order has been passed without any jurisdiction in consequence of the provisions of regulation 27 .