Allowed

Devendra Kumar v. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Managing Dir. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2025WRIA/1557/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a punishment order imposing two penalties on a petitioner, contrary to the applicable service regulations which prescribe only one penalty, relying on precedent distinguishing between conflicting service rules and regulations.

What did the court decide?

Impugned punishment order dated 22.02.2024 quashed; competent authority directed to pass fresh order within six weeks.

Devendra Kumar Vs U.P. Cooperative… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8972

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1557 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar

¶5

Respondent :- U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Managing Dir. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- Shireesh Kumar

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

1 . Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

2 . By means of the supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner states that earlier on account of wrong legal advice, the petitioner has filed an appeal against the punishment order dated 22.02.2024, which has been withdrawn by means of his application dated 11.02.2025.

¶9

3 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sunil Sharma, Advocate who files his vakalatnama on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2.

¶10

4 . Under challenge is the punishment order dated 22.02.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the petitioner has been imposed with a penalty of recovery and withholding three increments permanently.

¶11

5 . Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are two rules/regulations governing the service conditions of the employees working in the U.P. Cooperative Federation namely U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited Karmachari Sewa Niyamawali, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1980') and U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations, 1975').

¶12

6 . Contention is that a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Pancham Ram Yadav vs The U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd.

¶13

through Managing Director & Anr in Special Appeal No.435 of 2008 has held that in case of conflict between the Regulations, 1975 and Rules, 1980, the Regulations, 1975 shall prevail.

¶14

7 . Contention is that although the Rules, 1980 provide for imposition of more than one punishment yet the Regulations, 1975 only prescribe any one penalty and as by means of the impugned order two penalties have been imposed consequently keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pancham Ram Yadav (supra) it is the Rules, 1975 which would be applicable and as such imposition of two penalties by means of the impugned punishment order dated 22.02.2024 vitiates the impugned order.

¶15

8 . Aforesaid proposition of law is not disputed by Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶16

9 . Considering that as the impugned punishment order is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench judgment in the case of Pancham Ram Yadav (supra), the order impugned dated 22.02.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition is quashed. The petition is allowed .

¶17

10 . The competent authority shall proceed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law under relevant rules.

¶18

11 . Let such an order by passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶19

Order Date :- 12.2.2025

¶20

prateek

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Devendra Kumar v. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Managing Dir. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar v. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Managing Dir. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

C/M Lala Bhikhari Lal Lakshmi Devi Kanya Shiksha Sansthan, Lko. Thru. Mgr. Shri Virendra Jaisawal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Basic Education, Lko. and Others

C/M Social Service Kanya Pathshala, Lko. Thru. Deputy Manager Shri Ram Babu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education, Lko. and 2 Others

Prabhu Narain and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Legal Remembrance, Lko. and Another

Mohini Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education and 6 Others

Saiyed Hasan Abbas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and 5 Others

Triloki Nath Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Micro Medium and Small Industries Lko. and Another