Kamlesh Kumar Chakarabarti vs U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd. Thru. Managing Director
Case Details
Sri Prashast Puri, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 3 and the same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 & 2, Sri Prashast Puri, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and perused the record. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13-12-2024 passed by the Managing Director of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Ltd., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C.F.'). Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was posted as Accountant in U.P. P.C.F. and a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against him and one Mr. Man Mohan Mishra, Acting Director, U.P. P.C.F., was appointed as Enquiry Officer and thereafter, the chargesheet was issued and after concluding the proceeding of the enquiry, the same was submitted to the disciplinary authority, who after show cause, passed the order on 18-10-2014, whereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 07-01- 2015, before the Chairman, U.P. Cooperative Service Board, who rejected the same and thereafter, Writ Petition No. 5588(S/S) of 2015 was preferred by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the 2 WRIA No. 12910 of 2025 disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. He added that the writ petition was allowed vide Judgment and Order dated 07-02- 2023 and the order impugned therein, was quashed and the liberty was given to the authority concerned to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law. He submitted that since the punishment of reversion to the original rank was awarded by the order impugned, whereas the order of recovery has already been passed against the petitioner, which is an admitted fact in the order impugned itself. He argued that the Regulation 84 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations,1975(hereafter referred to as 'Regulation,1975') provides that only one punishment can be awarded punishments provided provisions.Regulation 84 reads as under :- "84. Penalties.- (i) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in any other regulation, an employee who commits a breach of duty enjoined upon him or has been convicted for criminal offence or an offence under section 103 of the Act or does anything prohibited by these regulations shall be liable to be punished by any one of the following penalties: - (a)censure, (b)with holding of increment, (c)fine on an employee of Category IV (peon, chaukidar, etc.). (d)recovery from pay or security deposit to compensate in whole or in part for any pecuniary loss caused to the co-operative society by the employee's conduct, (e)reduction in rank or grades held substantively by the employee, (f)removal from service, or (g)dismissal from service. (ii)Copy of order of the punishment shall invariably be given to the employee concerned and entry to this effect shall be made in the service record of the employee. (iii)No penalty except censure shall be imposed unless a show cause notice has been given to the employee and he has either failed to reply within the specified time or his reply has been found to be unsatisfactory by the punishing authority. (iv)(a)The charge-sheeted employee shall be awarded punishment by the appropriate authority according to the seriousness of the offence: Provided that no penalty under sub-clause (e), (f) or (g) of clause (i) shall be imposed without recourse to disciplinary proceedings. (b)No employee shall be removed or dismissed by an authority other than by 3 WRIA No. 12910 of 2025 which he was appointed unless the appointing authority has made prior delegation of such authority to such other person or authority in writing. (v)The appointing authority or person authorised by him while passing orders for stoppage of increments shall state the period for which it is stopped and whether it shall have effect of postponing future increments or promotion." He added that since the order of recovery has already undergone and therefore, passing further order impugned herein, whereby punishment of reversion of rank, has been awarded; is against the mandate of Regulation 84 of the 'Regulations, 1975'. He submitted that the issue in question has already been settled by the Full Bench of this court vide Judgment and Order dated 02-09-2019 passed in Special Appeal No. 435 of 2008, Pancham Ram Yadav Vs The U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. He has referred paragraph nos. 38, 41 & 42 of the Judgment, which are extracted hereinunder:- "38. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to expand scope of Regulation 84 beyond what is stated specifically therein and/or to allow Rule 83 to operate beyond Regulation 84 which is part of principal legislation under which Rule 83 has been framed and has to be subordinate thereto.
41. We would also like to observe that the competent authority framing Regulations under Section 122 should look into the matter. It is advisable that Regulation 84 should be amended at the earliest so as to avoid any injurious situation occurring to Co-operative Societies governed by Regulations, 1975 on account of lacuna in the drafting of Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 with regard to imposing of punishment.
42. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us as under: (1) Since evident contradiction in the language of Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 and Rule 83 of Rules, 1980, the aforesaid provisions cannot be harmonized, hence Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 shall prevail over Rule 83 of Rules, 1980 and only one of the punishments prescribed can be imposed as specifically stated in Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975. (2) The Division Bench judgment in Virendra Kumar Gupta's case (supra) lays down correct law and otherwise view expressed by learned Single Judge in Satya Narain Mishra's case (supra) as also expressed in the Reference order is not correct position of law." Concluding his arguments, he submits that the order impugned is not only against the mandate of the Regulation 84 of the 'Regulations, 1975', but, is also against the settled proposition of law as is settled by the the Full Bench of this court, in the case of Pancham Ram 4 WRIA No. 12910 of 2025 Yadav(Supra). Therefore, submission is that the order impugned is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties have opposed the contentions aforesaid, on some factual grounds, but, he submits that prior passing of the order dated 13-12- 2024, the authority concerned has sought approval of the Managing Director of the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board under Regulation 87 of the 'Regulations, 1975'. He submits that the order impugned has been passed in consonance with Regulation 87 of the 'Regulations, 1975' itself. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, prima-facie, it is apparent that the enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner on 22-12-2011 and thereafter, the same was completed and after passing of the punishment order by the disciplinary authority, the same was assailed before the appellate authority, that too, was approved and thereafter, a writ petition was preferred before this court challenging both the orders,wherein this court, allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority and give liberty to the respondent-authority to pass order afresh. The order impugned herein has been passed by the disciplinary authority while proceeding in the matter as fresh. When this court examines the order dated 13-12-2024, it is apparent that the petitioner has already undergone the recovery proceeding and by virtue of the order impugned, the reversion from the rank has been awarded to the petitioner, which is another punishment awarded to him. The Regulation 84 of the Regulations, 1975 clearly mandates that only one punishment can be awarded, whereas admittedly, for the charges for which the enquiry was conducted, two punishments have been awarded. Contention of learned counsel for the respondents that prior to passing the order dated 13-12-2024, the approval was taken by the Managing Director of the corporation from the Secretary, U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, is of no avail as the 5 WRIA No. 12910 of 2025 Regulation 84 of the 'Regulations, 1975', clearly prohibits to award two punishments, in one set of enquiry proceedings. This court is also aware of the law settled in the case of Pancham Ram Yadav Vs The U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. through Managing Director and another(Supra). Consequently, the order impugned herein dated 13-12-2024 is unsustainable in the eyes of law, thus, the same is hereby quashed. Consequences to follow. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. November 25, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench
Sri Prashast Puri, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 3 and the same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 & 2, Sri Prashast Puri, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and perused the record. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13-12-2024 passed by the Managing Director of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Ltd., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C.F.'). Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was posted as Accountant in U.P. P.C.F. and a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against him and one Mr. Man Mohan Mishra, Acting Director, U.P. P.C.F., was appointed as Enquiry Officer and thereafter, the chargesheet was issued and after concluding the proceeding of the enquiry, the same was submitted to the disciplinary authority, who after show cause, passed the order on 18-10-2014, whereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 07-01- 2015, before the Chairman, U.P. Cooperative Service Board, who rejected the same and thereafter, Writ Petition No. 5588(S/S) of 2015 was preferred by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the 2 WRIA No. 12910 of 2025 disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. He added that the writ petition was allowed vide Judgment and Order dated 07-02- 2023 and the order impugned therein, was quashed and the liberty was given to the authority concerned to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law. He submitted that since the punishment of reversion to the original rank was awarded by the order impugned, whereas the order of recovery has already been passed against the petitioner, which is an admitted fact in the order impugned itself. He argued that the Regulation 84 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations,1975(hereafter referred to as 'Regulation,1975') provides that only one punishment can be awarded punishments provided provisions.Regulation 84 reads as under :- "84. Penalties.- (i) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in any other regulation, an employee who commits a breach of duty enjoined upon him or has been convicted for criminal offence or an offence under section 103 of the Act or does anything prohibited by these regulations shall be liable to be punished by any one of the following penalties: - (a)censure, (b)with holding of increment, (c)fine on an employee of Category IV (peon, chaukidar, etc.). (d)recovery from pay or security deposit to compensate in whole or in part for any pecuniary loss caused to the co-operative society by the employee's conduct, (e)reduction in rank or grades held substantively by the employee, (f)removal from service, or (g)dismissal from service. (ii)Copy of order of the punishment shall invariably be given to the employee concerned and entry to this effect shall be made in the service record of the employee. (iii)No penalty except censure shall be imposed unless a show cause notice has been given to the employee and he has either failed to reply within the specified time or his reply has been found to be unsatisfactory by the punishing authority. (iv)(a)The charge-sheeted employee shall be awarded punishment by the appropriate authority according to the seriousness of the offence: Provided that no penalty under sub-clause (e), (f) or (g) of clause (i) shall be imposed without recourse to disciplinary proceedings. (b)No employee shall be removed or dismissed by an authority other than by 3 WRIA No. 12910 of 2025 which he was appointed unless the appointing authority has made prior delegation of such authority to such other person or authority in writing. (v)The appointing authority or person authorised by him while passing orders for stoppage of increments shall state the period for which it is stopped and whether it shall have effect of postponing future increments or promotion." He added that since the order of recovery has already undergone and therefore, passing further order impugned herein, whereby punishment of reversion of rank, has been awarded; is against the mandate of Regulation 84 of the 'Regulations, 1975'. He submitted that the issue in question has already been settled by the Full Bench of this court vide Judgment and Order dated 02-09-2019 passed in Special Appeal No. 435 of 2008, Pancham Ram Yadav Vs The U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. He has referred paragraph nos. 38, 41 & 42 of the Judgment, which are extracted hereinunder:- "38. In this view of the matter, we find no reason to expand scope of Regulation 84 beyond what is stated specifically therein and/or to allow Rule 83 to operate beyond Regulation 84 which is part of principal legislation under which Rule 83 has been framed and has to be subordinate thereto.
41. We would also like to observe that the competent authority framing Regulations under Section 122 should look into the matter. It is advisable that Regulation 84 should be amended at the earliest so as to avoid any injurious situation occurring to Co-operative Societies governed by Regulations, 1975 on account of lacuna in the drafting of Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 with regard to imposing of punishment.
42. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us as under: (1) Since evident contradiction in the language of Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 and Rule 83 of Rules, 1980, the aforesaid provisions cannot be harmonized, hence Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 shall prevail over Rule 83 of Rules, 1980 and only one of the punishments prescribed can be imposed as specifically stated in Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975. (2) The Division Bench judgment in Virendra Kumar Gupta's case (supra) lays down correct law and otherwise view expressed by learned Single Judge in Satya Narain Mishra's case (supra) as also expressed in the Reference order is not correct position of law." Concluding his arguments, he submits that the order impugned is not only against the mandate of the Regulation 84 of the 'Regulations, 1975', but, is also against the settled proposition of law as is settled by the the Full Bench of this court, in the case of Pancham Ram 4 WRIA No. 12910 of 2025 Yadav(Supra). Therefore, submission is that the order impugned is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties have opposed the contentions aforesaid, on some factual grounds, but, he submits that prior passing of the order dated 13-12- 2024, the authority concerned has sought approval of the Managing Director of the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board under Regulation 87 of the 'Regulations, 1975'. He submits that the order impugned has been passed in consonance with Regulation 87 of the 'Regulations, 1975' itself. Upon considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, prima-facie, it is apparent that the enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner on 22-12-2011 and thereafter, the same was completed and after passing of the punishment order by the disciplinary authority, the same was assailed before the appellate authority, that too, was approved and thereafter, a writ petition was preferred before this court challenging both the orders,wherein this court, allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority and give liberty to the respondent-authority to pass order afresh. The order impugned herein has been passed by the disciplinary authority while proceeding in the matter as fresh. When this court examines the order dated 13-12-2024, it is apparent that the petitioner has already undergone the recovery proceeding and by virtue of the order impugned, the reversion from the rank has been awarded to the petitioner, which is another punishment awarded to him. The Regulation 84 of the Regulations, 1975 clearly mandates that only one punishment can be awarded, whereas admittedly, for the charges for which the enquiry was conducted, two punishments have been awarded. Contention of learned counsel for the respondents that prior to passing the order dated 13-12-2024, the approval was taken by the Managing Director of the corporation from the Secretary, U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, is of no avail as the 5 WRIA No. 12910 of 2025 Regulation 84 of the 'Regulations, 1975', clearly prohibits to award two punishments, in one set of enquiry proceedings. This court is also aware of the law settled in the case of Pancham Ram Yadav Vs The U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. through Managing Director and another(Supra). Consequently, the order impugned herein dated 13-12-2024 is unsustainable in the eyes of law, thus, the same is hereby quashed. Consequences to follow. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. November 25, 2025 AKS (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench