CHAIRMAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE U.P. MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATION CENTRALIZED SERVICES versus JAGPAL SINGH on 23 March 2021

CHAIRMAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE U.P.MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATION CENTRALIZEDSERVICES

v.

JAGPAL SINGH

(Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2021)

MARCH 23, 2021

[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, HEMANT GUPTAAND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]

Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Employees ServiceRegulations, 1975: Regn. 87 – Prior approval – AdministrativeCommittee in exercise of powers conferred under r.10 r/w provisoto r.15 passed office order on 8.8.2016 that prior to imposing ofpenalty, the approval of Dairy Milk Commissioner/Registrar wouldbe mandatory – In terms of the said Circular, the order of punishmentwas passed against respondent-employee after approval from theDairy Milk Commissioner discharging functions as the Registrar –Challenge against – Held: The exercise of the powers under the Actare conferred by designation – The prior approval of the punishmentis by the Registrar – If, incidentally, the person holding the post ofRegistrar is also Chairman of the Administrative Committee, it cannotbe said to be illegal as he is exercising the powers of Registrar aswell as of the Chairman of the Administrative Committee in terms ofthe Act or the Rules – The Chairman is the Disciplinary Authority interms of proviso to r.15 of the Dairy Service Rules – Though, theAdministrative Committee has resolved that the approval of the DairyMilk Commissioner/Registrar would be mandatory, but suchResolution has to be read in the context of proviso to r.15 whichconfers jurisdiction on Chairman of the Administrative Committeeto be a Disciplinary Authority – Since the Chairman of theAdministrative Committee happens to be the Registrar, the decisionto impose punishment may not require prior approval – However, ifprior approval has been sought from the office of Registrar, thatwill not vitiate the proceedings – There is nothing wrong in theexercise of power by the Chairman of the Committee – Thus, thereis no error in the order of punishment passed by the Administrative

729

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

[2021] 3 S.C.R.

ACommittee – Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Dairy Federation and MilkUnion Centralised Service Rules, 1984 – ss.10, 15.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. The Uttar Pradesh Co-operative DairyFederation and Milk Union Centralised Service Rules, 1984Bcame to be published in the U.P. Government Gazette on29.8.1984. As per the said Rules, the Administrative Committeewas to consist of a Managing Director of the Federation, a nomineeof the Registrar not below the rank of Class I Officer, a nomineeof the Managing Director of the Federation and a MemberCSecretary. Rule 15 of the Dairy Service Rules contemplates thatthe Appointing Authority and the authority exercising disciplinarycontrol over the members of the service shall be such as may belaid down in the regulations. However, the proviso contemplatedthat till the enforcement of such regulations, the Chairman of theAdministrative Committee shall be the Appointing Authority andDwould act as the authority exercising disciplinary control as well.[Paras 11, 13][740-C-D; 743-E-F]

2. The Administrative Committee in exercise of the powersconferred under Rule 10 read with proviso to Rule 15 passed anoffice order on 8.8.2016 that prior to imposing of penalty, theEapproval of Dairy Milk Commissioner/Registrar would bemandatory. It is in terms of the said Circular that the order ofpunishment was passed against the employee after approval fromthe Commissioner (Dairy Milk), discharging functions as theRegistrar. [Paras 14, 15][743-G; 744-C]F3. Section 122 of the Act and Rule 389-A of the 1968 Rules

3. Section 122 of the Act and Rule 389-A of the 1968 Rulesempower the State Government to constitute an authority forrecruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employeesof Co-operative Societies. By virtue of notification dated 4.3.1972,Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional Service Board wasGconstituted for the purpose of recruiting, training and exercisingdisciplinary control of the employees of Apex Level Societies,Central or Primary Societies. Later, Regulation 87 of the ServiceRegulations mandated that no order of punishment could bepassed without prior concurrence of the Board. However, bynotification dated 17.11.1979 issued again in terms of the powersH

conferred on the State Government under Section 122 of the Actand Rule 389-A of the 1968 Rules, the Apex Level Society i.e.Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation, Central or PrimaryMilk Societies, whose area of operation extends to more thanone district or State and Co-operative Milk Unions, includingKanpur Co-operative Milk Board, were taken out of the controlof Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional Service Board. ASelection Committee was constituted in respect of Category Iand II employees. Thereafter, it was the Selection Committeewho was empowered for the purpose of recruitment, training anddisciplinary control of the employees of Dairy Co-operativeSocieties until the Dairy Service Rules came into force uponpublication of the Gazette on 29.8.1984 and not the ServiceRegulations since it ceased to apply vide notification 17.11.1979issued by the State. The Resolution dated 20.09.1984 by the CadreAuthority which provided that the service conditions of themembers of the Centralised Service shall be governed by the1975 Regulations will not revive the applicability of Regulation87 of the Service Regulations as Rule 15 of the Dairy ServiceRules contemplate the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority.[Para 18][745-G-H; 746-A-D]

4. The Administrative Committee exercises overall controland supervision over the members of the Service in terms ofRule 10(i) of the Dairy Service Rules. Such AdministrativeCommittee constituted under Rule 5 of the Dairy Service Rulesis the Appointing Authority till the time Regulations are framedin terms of Rule 15 of the said Rules. Therefore, the Resolutiondated 20.9.1984 will not determine the Appointing or DisciplinaryAuthority, the same being covered the Statutory Rule namelythe Dairy Service Rules. The Dairy Service Rules have beenframed in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under Section122A of the Act. The Regulations can be framed by the Registraror the State either under Section 121 or 122 of the Act or interms of Rule 9 of the Dairy Service Rules. Such Rules wouldhave precedence over the Regulations, which are framed or arerequired to be framed either by the Registrar or by the Authorityentrusted with the task of recruitment, training and disciplinarycontrol. Therefore, in terms of proviso to Rule 15, the Chairmanof the Administrative Committee is the Appointing and AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ADisciplinary Authority. Hence, the Service Regulations would beinapplicable to determine the Appointing Authority and/or theDisciplinary Authority in respect of the employees of Co-operativeMilk Societies. [Paras 19, 20][746-E-H; 747-A]

5. Regulation 106 of the Service Regulations empowersBthe State Government or the Registrar to pass such orders notinconsistent with the Regulations in respect of termination,dismissal or removal. The punishment imposed is of reversionand not of either termination, dismissal or removal. Therefore,Regulation 106 will not be applicable. There is also noinconsistency or difficulty which the State Government orCRegistrar is empowered to remove in exercise of powersconferred under Regulation 106. The Administrative Committeehowever passed an office order on 8.8.2016 that the Chairmanshall seek prior approval of Dairy Milk Commissioner/Registrarprior to imposing penalty. Such decision of the AdministrativeDCommittee is self-regulatory and has been applied by theAdministrative Committee in the present case as well whileseeking prior approval of the Milk Commissioner/Registrar.[Paras 22, 24][747-C-D; 747-F-G]

6. The 1975 Regulations were framed in exercise of powerEconferred under Section 122 of the 1965 Act. Till the time 1975Regulations were framed, the entire statutory regime, in termsof which service conditions including disciplinary control ofemployees in a co-operative society or class of co-operativesocieties could be regulated, was in terms of Sections 121 and122 of the 1965 Act. Regulation 87 of 1975 Regulations, therefore,Fhas to be seen as part of such general statutory regime.[Para 25][747-G-H; 748-A]

7. On 16.04.1976, Section 122-A was inserted in the 1965Act which now provided for centralization of services. This Sectionopens with a non-obstante clause and thus, the intent is to giveGan overriding effect over the general regime contemplated bySections 121 and 122 of the 1965 Act. Section 122-A of the 1965Act empowers the Government, by rules, to provide for creationof one or more services of employees of such co-operative societyor class of co-operative societies as the Government may thinkHfit and prescribe inter alia conditions of service including appointment and removal of persons appointed to such service.[Para 26][748-B-C]

8. It was in exercise of power conferred under Section 122-A of the 1965 Act that 1984 Rules were framed. Rule 15 of the1984 Rules stipulates that the appointing authority and theauthority exercising disciplinary control over the members of theservice shall be such as may be laid down in the Regulations andtill such Regulations are brought in force, ‘the Chairman of theCommittee shall be the appointing authority and the authorityexercising disciplinary control over them’. [Para 27][748-C-D]

9. In terms of the specific statutory regime referable toSection 122-A of the 1965 Act, Rule 15 thus, would be thegoverning principle rather than Regulation 87 framed in exerciseof regulation making power referable to the general dispensationunder Sections 121 and 122 of the 1965 Act. Rule 15 does notcontemplate that the Chairman of the Committee is required tohave any prior concurrence of any authority. It would, therefore,be incorrect to rely upon or import the principles of Rule 87 insubstitution of clear intent and mandate of Rule 15 of 1984 Rules.[Paras 28 and 29][748-E-F]

10. The Resolution dated 20.09.1984 or for that matter theOffice Order dated 08.08.2016 which are pure departmentalexecutive instructions cannot displace statutory Rule 15 and theprocess contemplated therein and import a requirement whichwould be in the teeth of Rule 15. [Para 30][748-G]

11. The Milk Commissioner has been appointed asRegistrar in exercise of the powers conferred on the StateGovernment by the Act. The approval from the Registrar is interms of the resolution of the Administrative Committeeconstituted in terms of Dairy Service Rules. The exercise of thepowers under the Act are conferred by designation. The priorapproval of the punishment is by the Registrar. If, incidentally,the person holding the post of Registrar is also Chairman of theAdministrative Committee, it cannot be said to be illegal as he isexercising the powers of Registrar as well as of the Chairman ofthe Administrative Committee in terms of the Act or the Rules.[Para 32][749-E-F]

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A12. The Chairman is the Disciplinary Authority in terms ofproviso to Rule 15 of the Dairy Service Rules. Though, theAdministrative Committee has resolved that the approval of theDairy Milk Commissioner/Registrar would be mandatory, butsuch Resolution has to be read in the context of proviso to Rule15 which confers jurisdiction on the Chairman of theBAdministrative Committee to be a Disciplinary Authority. Sincethe Chairman of the Administrative Committee happens to bethe Registrar, the decision to impose punishment may not requireprior approval. However, if the prior approval has been soughtfrom the office of Registrar, that will not vitiate the proceedings.CViewed thus, the power exercised by the Chairman of theCommittee in the instant case cannot be subject to Regulation87. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the exercise of powerby the Chairman of the Committee in the present case. Thus,there is no error in the order of punishment passed by theAdministrative Committee. The orders passed by the High CourtDare not based upon correct appreciation of law and facts.[Paras 33, 34 and 35][749-F-H; 750-A-B]

Chandra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.1985 Suppl.SCC 92 – referred to.

ECase Law Reference

1985 Suppl. SCC 92referred toPara 16

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 49 Of

2021.

FFrom the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2019 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Special AppealDefective No. 344 of 2019.

Harish Pandey, Adv. for the Appellant.

S. Rungta, Sudeep Kumar, Pankaj Bhagat, Advs. for theGRespondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by theHDivision Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 26.8.2019, affirming the order passed by the learned SingleBench on 17.5.2019.

2. The writ petition filed before the High Court was to assail anorder of punishment dated 26.10.2018, whereby the respondent[1] wasordered to be reverted to the minimum pay scale and the period ofsuspension was to be considered as a period spent by the employee inservice. However, for the said suspension period, the employee was notfound to be entitled to any other pay or allowance except subsistenceallowance and dearness allowance. The order of punishment was passedafter the prior approval of the Commissioner (Dairy Milk), Lucknow,designated as Registrar by the State Government on the same day.

3. The employee was appointed as Executive Trainee in theCentralised Services on 11.8.1984. After completion of the training period,he was appointed as Manager Grade-III. The employee was servedwith a charge sheet dated 21.4.2015, inter-alia, on the ground that inaddition to two chambers of milk in tankers, one more additional thirdhidden chamber having capacity of 310 liters was created by partition.Water was filled in the said additional chamber to maintain total weightof the vehicle. After weight measurement at the time of unloading ofmilk from the two chambers, water from the additional hidden chamberwas discharged. On account of manipulation in the weight measurement,the Federation suffered financial losses. The employee controverted thesaid allegations and thus an Inquiry Officer was appointed. In the InquiryReport dated 13.6.2018, charges nos. 1 and 3 were found to be partiallyproved against the employee. The Inquiry Report was then forwardedto the employee along with a show cause notice on 25.6.2018. Anopportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to him. It is thereafterthat the Managing Director/ Chairman (Administrative Committee)passed an order on 26.10.2018 holding the employee guilty of all thethree charges and passed an order of punishment, as mentioned above,after obtaining approval from the Commissioner (Dairy Milk)/ Registrar,Dairy Milk Co-operatives, U.P. on 26.10.2018. It is the said order whichwas challenged by the employee by way of a writ petition before theHigh Court.

4. The learned Single Bench while deciding the Writ Petition heldthat the order of punishment was passed without following the due 1 hereinafter referred to as ‘employee’

AB

C

D

EF

G

Aprocedure of law, four days prior to the retirement of the employee.There was an undue and unexplained haste in passing the impugnedorder without taking prior approval under Regulation 87 of the ServiceRegulations from the competent authority i.e., the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional Service Board. It was further held that thepunishment order has been passed by the Chairman of the AdministrativeBCommittee and the approval for the punishment has also been grantedby the same person. Therefore, the present case was found to be anexample of inappropriate approval given by an incompetent authority.

5. In the intra-court appeal, the Division Bench of the High Courtreferred to the inquiry reports dated 9.5.2014 and 15.10.2014 to holdCthat the employee has not been given any disagreement note, rather hewas exonerated in those reports. However, it is to be noted that theDivision Bench overlooked the fact that they were preliminary inquiries.The Division Bench considering the Regulations 87 and 106 of the ServiceRegulations held as under:

D“15. On due consideration of the aforesaid, it is clear that basicrequirement is that the order should not be inconsistent to theRegulations of 1975 and the order dated 08.08.2016 is in directconflict to the provisions as contained under Regulation 87 of theRegulations of 1975. The respondent-petitioner was a member ofECentralized Services, which were promulgated by the U.P. DairyFederation & Milk Union Centralized Services Rules, 1984, whichcame into existence after a period of more than five years and,therefore, the notification dated 17.11.1979 cannot be applicableto the members of Centralized Services and, as such, the analogygiven by the Milk Commissioner/Registrar while passing the orderFdated 08.08.2016 is incorrect.”6. Before we consider the respective arguments and the findingsof the High Court, some of the statutory provisions are reproducedhereunder for appreciation of the contentions raised:

G“UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITES ACT, 19652121. Power of Registrar to determine terms of employmentof society. - (1) The Registrar may, from time to time, frameregulation to regulate the emoluments and other conditions ofservice including the disciplinary control of employees in a co- H2 for short, the ‘Act’

CHAIRMAN ADMIN. COMM. U.P. MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATIONCENTRALIZED SERVICES v. JAGPAL SINGH [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

operative society or a class of co-operative societies and anysociety to which such terms are applicable, shall comply with thoseregulations and with any orders of the Registrar, issued to securesuch compliance.

(2) The regulations framed under sub-section (1) shall be publishedin the Gazette and take effect from the date of such publication.

122. Authority to control employees of co-operativesocieties. - (1) The State Government may constitute anyauthority or authorities, in such manner as may be prescribed, forthe recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employeesof co-operative societies, or a class of co-operative societies, andmay require such authority or authorities to frame regulationsregarding recruitment, emoluments, terms and conditions of serviceincluding disciplinary control of such employees and subject tothe provisions contained in Section 70, settlement of disputesbetween an employee of a co-operative society and the society.

(2) The regulations framed under sub-section (1) shall be subjectto the approval of the State Government and shall after suchapproval, be published in the Gazette, and take effect from thedate of such publication and shall supersede any regulations madeunder Section 121.

3122-A. Centralisation of certain services.- (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the StateGovernment may by rules provide for the creation of one thereservices of such employees of such co-operative societies or classof co-operative societies as the Stale Government may think fit,common to such co-operative societies and prescribe the methodof recruitment, appointment, removal and other conditions ofservice of persons appointed to any such service.

(2) When any such service is created, all employees of suchsocieties existing on the dale of creation of such service on theposts included in such service, shall be deemed to have beenprovisionally absorbed in the service. with effect from the date ofcreation of such service:

Provided that any such employee may, by notice in writing to theprescribed authority within the prescribed period, intimate his option 3 subs.by U.P. Act 17 of 1977 (w.e.f.3-10-1975)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Aof not becoming a member of such service, and in that event hisservices in the society shall stand determined with effect fromthe date of such notice and he shall be entitled to compensationfrom the society which shall be- xxxxxx BSection 130. Power to make rules.—

(1) the State Government may, make rules to carry out the purposesof this Act.

(2) xx xxxx

C

THE UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIESRULES, 1968[4]

2. Definitions- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires D——

(a) ******

(b) “Apex Society”, “Apex Level Society” or “State Level Co-operative Society” means-

(1) to (3) ******E

(4) Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., Lucknow; xx xxxx *[389-A. The authority or authorities under Section 122 may beFconstituted by the State Government by notification published inthe Official Gazette]

* substituted by Notification No. 3885-C/XII-CA-5(1)-69-B, dt.Aug. 31, 1971, published in the U.P. Gaz., Extra., dt. 31[st] Aug.,1971, p.2.”G

7. In terms of Section 122 of the Act and Rule 389-A of the 1968Rules, a notification was issued on 4.3.1972 constituting Uttar PradeshCo-operative Institutional Service Board for the purposes of recruitment,training and disciplinary control of the employees of apex level, central H4 for short, ‘1968 Rules’

or primary societies. Later, the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative SocietiesEmployees Service Regulations, 1975[5] were published in the U.P.Gazette, Extraordinary on 6.1.1976 in exercise of the powers conferredunder Section 121 of the Act. Some of the relevant provisions read thus:

“2(iii) ‘appointing authority’ means “Committee of Management”or any other authority which is empowered under these regulationsor the bye-laws of the society concerned to make appointment;

(iv) ‘Board’ means the U.P. Co-operative Institutional ServiceBoard;

(v) to (viii)******

(ix) ‘Co-operative Society’ means a Co-operative Society placedunder the purview of the Board by Government Notification No.366-C/XII-C-3-36-71, dated March 4, 1972, as amended fromtime to time by notifications issued under Section 122 of the Actread with Rule 389(a) of the Rules.

xx xx

xx

87. Order imposing penalty under sub-clauses (e) to (g) of clause(1) of Regulation No. 84 shall not be passed except with the priorconcurrence of the Board.”

8. Regulation 84 of the Service Regulations provides for penaltiessuch as reduction in rank or grades held substantively by the employee(clause e), removal from service (Clause f), or dismissal from service(Clause g). As per Regulation 87 of the Service Regulations, the aforesaidpunishment could not be passed except with the prior concurrence ofthe Board.

9. It may be stated that all the powers of Registrar in respect ofall Co-operative Milk Societies were conferred on the Milk CommissionerUttar Pradesh by the State Government vide notification dated 19[th] May,1976 in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section 2 of Section 3of the Act.

10. The Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional Service Boardceased to have jurisdiction to operate regarding recruitment, trainingand disciplinary control of the employees of the Apex Level Milk Societyi.e. Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation, Central or Primary Milk 5 for short, the ‘Service Regulations’

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ASocieties vide notification dated 17.11.1979 issued under Section 122read with Rule 389-A of the 1968 Rules. Instead, a Selection Committeefor recruitment of Category I and II employees, as specified by theRegistrar from time to time, was constituted. Such Selection Committeeconsisted of an officer nominated by the State Government as Chairman;a representative of the National Milk Dairy Development Board, PrincipalBAgricultural Institute, Naini, Allahabad and one Chairman of a Co-operative Milk Union or Central Milk Society in the State nominated bythe State Government as Members; and Managing Director, PradeshikCo-operative Dairy Federation as Member Secretary.

11. The Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Dairy Federation and MilkCUnion Centralised Service Rules, 1984[6] came to be published in the U.P.Government Gazette on 29.8.1984. As per the said Rules, theAdministrative Committee was to consist of a Managing Director of theFederation, a nominee of the Registrar not below the rank of Class IOfficer, a nominee of the Managing Director of the Federation and a DMember Secretary. Some of the relevant provisions of the Dairy ServiceRules read as under:

“2(a) “Act” means the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act,1965.

(b) “Authority” means the Cadre Authority as constituted inEaccordance with rule 4 of these rules;

(c) “Board” means the Committee of Management of thePradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., Lucknow (andincludes the Administrator or the Committee of Administrators ofthe Federation);F(d) “Committee” means the Administrative Committee constitutedin accordance with rule 5 of these rules;

(e) “Federation” means the Pradeshik Co-operative DairyFederation Ltd., Lucknow; G(f) to (l) ******3. Creation of Service. – (1) Uttar Pradesh Co-operative DairyFederation and Milk Unions Centralised Service shall consist ofall the managerial posts of the Federation and the Unions except H6 for short, the ‘Dairy Service Rules’

the post of Managing Director, Chief Commercial Manager andChief General Manager of the Federation.

(2) No appointment shall be made to any of the posts falling withinthe purview of the service by the Federation or Union from thedate of enforcement of these rules:

Provided that the Government may place on deputation anyofficer of the Government on any managerial post of the federationor Union:

Provided further that the services of the persons already inthe employment of another, Co-operative Society, or a corporationor undertaking owned or controlled by the central or StateGovernment or a body corporate administering a local fund orNational Dairy Development Board may also be taken ondeputation.

4. Constitution of Cadre Authority. - The Cadre Authority shallbe constituted as under:

(i) The Registrar …Chairman

(ii) to (viii) ******

(ix) Managing Director of the Federation …Member-Secretary Note. - In case the post of the Registrar and the ManagingDirector of the Federation is held by the same officer, the Chairmanmay nominate any member as Member-Secretary and the vacancyof member so caused shall be filled by nomination of any otherofficer or the Federation by the Managing Director.

5. Constitution of Administrative Committee. – TheAdministrative Committee shall be constituted as under:

(i) Managing Director of the Federation - Chairman

(ii) A nominee of the Registrar not below the rank of Class IOfficer – Member

(iii) A nominee of the Managing Director of the Federation –Member-Secretary.

xx xx

xx

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

9. Powers and duties of the Authority. - (1) The Authoritywith the prior approval of the State government shall frameregulations relating to recruitment, training, emoluments, disciplinarycontrol and other conditions of service of the members suchregulations shall come into force from the date of their publicationin the Gazette.

A

B

(2) The Authority shall—

(i) determine and modify, from time to time, the scales of pay fordifferent category of posts, with the approval of the Registrar;

(ii) settle the dispute and allocate the cost of training, travellingCallowance, salary and other allowances for the period of trainingand the cost of recruitment under sub-rule (6) of rule 22;

(iii) advise the Government and the Registrar on matters relatingto the Service; D(iv) decide such policy matters concerning the Service as may bereferred to it by the Committee;

(v) exercise such other powers and perform such other dutiesunder these rules, or regulations as may be entrusted to it by theGovernment or the Registrar from time to time.

E10. Powers and duties of the Committee. - The Committeeshall—

(i) exercise overall control and supervision over the members ofthe Service;

(ii) to (vii) ******

F

xx

xxxx

15. Appointing Authority. - Appointing authority of and theauthority exercising disciplinary control over, the members of theservice and the Management Trainees and the Executives shallGbe such as may be laid down in the regulations:

Provided that till enforcement of such regulations theChairman of the Committee shall be the appointing authority andthe authority exercising disciplinary control over them.”

12. Later, Regulation 106 was inserted in the Service RegulationsHvide Notification No. 2295 dated 9.12.2002. The provision reads as under:

CHAIRMAN ADMIN. COMM. U.P. MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATIONCENTRALIZED SERVICES v. JAGPAL SINGH [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

“1. Short title, commencement and application - (1) Theseregulations may be called the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative SocietiesEmployees’ Service (Tenth Amendment) Regulations, 2002.

(2) They shall take effect from the date of their publication in theU.P. Gazette.

(3) They shall apply to all the Employees of Co-operative Societiesin Uttar Pradesh.

2. Insertion of new Regulation. – In the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975 afterRegulation 105 the following regulation shall be inserted, namely:- “106. The State Government or the Registrar may pass suchorders not inconsistent with these Regulations as it or he deemsnecessary just and proper to remove any difficulty arising inrelation to emoluments, terms and conditions of service,appointment or re-appointment, termination, dismissal orremoval, deputation or merger.”

13. The Cadre Authority was required to frame regulations interms of Rule 9 of the Dairy Service Rules with the prior approval of theState Government relating to recruitment, training, emoluments,disciplinary control and other conditions of service of the members;whereas, the Administrative Committee under Rule 10 was to exerciseoverall control and supervision over the members of the service. Rule15 of the Dairy Service Rules contemplated that the Appointing Authorityand the authority exercising disciplinary control over the members of theservice shall be such as may be laid down in the regulations. However,the proviso contemplated that till the enforcement of such regulations,the Chairman of the Administrative Committee shall be the AppointingAuthority and would act as the authority exercising disciplinary controlas well.

14. The Administrative Committee in exercise of the powersconferred under Rule 10 read with proviso to Rule 15 passed an officeorder on 8.8.2016 that prior to imposing of penalty, the approval of DairyMilk Commissioner/Registrar would be mandatory. The relevant extractfrom the said Circular reads as under:

“… Therefore, in the matter of employees of Centralised ServiceCadre, until the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Society A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2021] 3 S.C.R.

AEmployees Service Rules, 1975 are applicable, till then prior toimposing of penalty the approval of Dairy Milk Commissioner/Registrar is mandatory.

Therefore, the Chairman, Administrative Committee, UttarPradesh Cooperative Dairy Federation and Dairy Milk FederationBCentralised Service Cadre, PCDF Hqrs., Lucknow is herebydirected that prior to imposing penalty against the members ofaforesaid cadre the prior approval of Dairy Milk Commissioner/Registrar under the provisions of Regulation 87 of Uttar PradeshCooperative Society Employees Service Rules, 1975 may beobtained necessarily.”C15. It is in terms of the said Circular that the order of punishmentwas passed against the employee after approval from the Commissioner(Dairy Milk), discharging functions as the Registrar.

16. The High Court relied upon a judgment of Division Bench ofDthe High Court in Chandra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.[7 ]whereinit was held that prior approval of the Board was not obtained as is requiredunder Regulation 87 of the Service Regulations. It was noted that thoughin terms of notification dated 17.11.1979 Service Regulations ceased toapply, but provisions as were existing before the provisions of ServiceRegulations, would be applicable to the employees of the CentralisedEServices in terms of the resolution dated 20.9.1984. It was also held thatthe notification dated 17.11.1979 was not mentioned in the resolutiondated 20.9.1984. Thus, it was concluded that the order of punishmentwithout approval of the Board was not legal in terms of Regulation 87 ofthe Service Regulations. Hence, the order of punishment was quashed.FThe relevant extract from Chandra Pal Singh reads as under:

“Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the partiesand perused the record. As far as the approval part is concerned,admittedly, no approval/concurrence was obtained by the Boardbefore passing the order of dismissal from service. In view of theGprovision of Regulation 87 of U.P. Cooperative SocietiesEmployees Service Regulation 1975, concurrence of the Board isrequired before passing the order of dismissal. According tonotification dated 17.11.1979, Pradeshik Cooperative DairyFederation Ltd. including the Primary Milk Cooperative Society H7 Writ-A No. 45263 of 2011 passed on 9.1.2018

were put out of purview of U.P. Cooperative Societies EmployeesService Regulation 1975 with respect to the recruitment, trainingand disciplinary control and by the same notification, selectioncommittee was constituted for category 1 and 2 employees ofcooperative dairy federation. Hence, in case of the CentralisedServices, the provision of Regulation 87 ceased to apply andwhatever provision was applicable before the provision ofRegulation 1975 was adopted, which will be applicable to theemployees of Centralised Services. When the provision wasadopted by the resolution of the Board dated 20.9.1984, thenotification of 1979 was not mentioned in the same and theresolution regarding adoption of the provisions of PradeshikCooperative Society Employees Service Regulation 1979 wereadopted till regulation for the Centralised Services was framed.Subsequently, it was clarified and approved vide order dated31.1.2000 by the Dairy Commissioner/Registrar and the resolutiondated 20.9.1984 was approved. Hence, till regulations are framed,the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees ServiceRegulations 1975 are applicable.”

17. We find that the High Court in the impugned judgment and inChandra Pal Singh proceeded on wrong assumptions of facts and law.Factually, in the present appeal, the disciplinary proceedings against theemployee were initiated on 21.4.2015. The Inquiry Report was submittedon 13.6.2018 wherein the charges nos. 1 and 3 were found to be proved.Thus, there was no question of recording of any disagreement with thefindings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. A show cause notice wassubsequently served upon the employee enclosing a copy of the InquiryReport on 25.6.2018. The employee was given an opportunity for personalhearing as well. Thereafter, an order of punishment was passed afterobtaining approval from the Commissioner (Dairy Milk).

18. Section 122 of the Act and Rule 389-A of the 1968 Rulesempower the State Government to constitute an authority for recruitment,training and disciplinary control of the employees of Co-operativeSocieties. By virtue of notification dated 4.3.1972, Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional Service Board was constituted for the purpose ofrecruiting, training and exercising disciplinary control of the employeesof Apex Level Societies, Central or Primary Societies. Later, Regulation87 of the Service Regulations mandated that no order of punishment AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acould be passed without prior concurrence of the Board. However, bynotification dated 17.11.1979 issued again in terms of the powersconferred on the State Government under Section 122 of the Act andRule 389-A of the 1968 Rules, the Apex Level Society i.e. PradeshikCo-operative Dairy Federation, Central or Primary Milk Societies, whosearea of operation extends to more than one district or State and Co-Boperative Milk Unions, including Kanpur Co-operative Milk Board, weretaken out of the control of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative InstitutionalService Board. A Selection Committee was constituted in respect ofCategory I and II employees. Thereafter, it was the Selection Committeewho was empowered for the purpose of recruitment, training andCdisciplinary control of the employees of Dairy Co-operative Societiesuntil the Dairy Service Rules came into force upon publication of theGazette on 29.8.1984 and not the Service Regulations since it ceased toapply vide notification 17.11.1979 issued by the State. The Resolutiondated 20.09.1984 by the Cadre Authority which provided that the serviceconditions of the members of the Centralised Service shall be governedDby the 1975 Regulations will not revive the applicability of Regulation 87of the Service Regulations as Rule 15 of the Dairy Service Rulescontemplate the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority.

19. The Administrative Committee exercises overall control andsupervision over the members of the Service in terms of Rule 10(i) ofEthe Dairy Service Rules. Such Administrative Committee constitutedunder Rule 5 of the Dairy Service Rules is the Appointing Authority tillthe time Regulations are framed in terms of Rule 15 of the said Rules.Therefore, the Resolution dated 20.9.1984 will not determine theAppointing or Disciplinary Authority, the same being covered the StatutoryFRule namely the Dairy Service Rules.

20. The Dairy Service Rules have been framed in exercise of thejurisdiction conferred under Section 122A of the Act. The Regulationscan be framed by the Registrar or the State either under Section 121 or122 of the Act or in terms of Rule 9 of the Dairy Service Rules. SuchGRules would have precedence over the Regulations, which are framedor are required to be framed either by the Registrar or by the Authorityentrusted with the task of recruitment, training and disciplinary control.Therefore, in terms of proviso to Rule 15, the Chairman of theAdministrative Committee is the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority.Hence, the Service Regulations would be inapplicable to determine theH

Appointing Authority and/or the Disciplinary Authority in respect of theemployees of Co-operative Milk Societies.

21. The attention of the Division Bench in Chandra Pal Singhwas not drawn to Rule 15 of the Dairy Service Rules. The proviso to thesaid Rule empowered the Administrative Committee constituted underRule 5 as an Appointing Authority and the authority to exercise disciplinarycontrol over the employees of the centralised services till the timeregulations are framed. The resolution dated 20.9.1984 would thus beapplicable in respect of other service conditions. However, with regardto disciplinary control, it would be the Dairy Service Rules which wouldbe applicable.

22. Regulation 106 of the Service Regulations empowers the StateGovernment or the Registrar to pass such orders not inconsistent withthe Regulations in respect of termination, dismissal or removal. Thepunishment imposed is of reversion and not of either termination, dismissalor removal. Therefore, Regulation 106 will not be applicable. There isalso no inconsistency or difficulty which the State Government orRegistrar is empowered to remove in exercise of powers conferred underRegulation 106.

23. In Chandra Pal Singh, the finding of the Division Bench thatthe 1979 notification is not mentioned in the resolution of the CadreAuthority passed on 20.9.1984 is untenable in view of statutory rulescontemplating the Appointing Authority. Therefore, the order ofpunishment passed by the Chairman of the Administrative Committee interms of proviso to Rule 15 is by the competent Disciplinary Authority.

24. The Administrative Committee however passed an office orderon 8.8.2016 that the Chairman shall seek prior approval of Dairy MilkCommissioner/Registrar prior to imposing penalty. Such decision of theAdministrative Committee is self-regulatory and has been applied by theAdministrative Committee in the present case as well while seekingprior approval of the Milk Commissioner/Registrar.

25. As mentioned before, the 1975 Regulations were framed inexercise of power conferred under Section 122 of the 1965 Act. Till thetime 1975 Regulations were framed, the entire statutory regime, in termsof which service conditions including disciplinary control of employeesin a co-operative society or class of co-operative societies could beregulated, was in terms of Sections 121 and 122 of the 1965 Act.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ARegulation 87 of 1975 Regulations, therefore, has to be seen as part ofsuch general statutory regime.

26. On 16.04.1976, Section 122-A was inserted in the 1965 Actwhich now provided for centralization of services. This Section openswith a non-obstante clause and thus, the intent is to give an overridingBeffect over the general regime contemplated by Sections 121 and 122 ofthe 1965 Act. Section 122-A of the 1965 Act empowers the Government,by rules, to provide for creation of one or more services of employees ofsuch co-operative society or class of co-operative societies as theGovernment may think fit and prescribe inter alia conditions of serviceincluding appointment and removal of persons appointed to such service.C

27. It was in exercise of power conferred under Section 122-A ofthe 1965 Act that 1984 Rules were framed. Rule 15 of the 1984 Rulesstipulates that the appointing authority and the authority exercisingdisciplinary control over the members of the service shall be such asmay be laid down in the Regulations and till such Regulations are broughtDin force, ‘the Chairman of the Committee shall be the appointingauthority and the authority exercising disciplinary control overthem’.

28. In terms of the specific statutory regime referable to Section122-A of the 1965 Act, Rule 15 thus, would be the governing principleErather than Regulation 87 framed in exercise of regulation making powerreferable to the general dispensation under Sections 121 and 122 of the1965 Act. Rule 15 does not contemplate that the Chairman of theCommittee is required to have any prior concurrence of any authority.

29. It would, therefore, be incorrect to rely upon or import theFprinciples of Rule 87 in substitution of clear intent and mandate of Rule15 of 1984 Rules.

30. The Resolution dated 20.09.1984 or for that matter the OfficeOrder dated 08.08.2016 which are pure departmental executiveinstructions cannot displace statutory Rule 15 and the processGcontemplated therein and import a requirement which would be in theteeth of Rule 15.

31. The learned Single Bench found that the Chairman of theAdministrative Committee and that the Milk Commissioner are one andthe same person, which vitiates the order of punishment passed. We doH

not find any merit in the said finding. Sir William Wade inhis Administrative Law stated:

“But there are many cases where no substitution is possible, sinceno one else is empowered to act. Natural justice then has to giveway to necessity; for otherwise there is no means of deciding andthe machinery of justice or administration will break down.

It was further stated:

“In administrative cases the same exigency may arise. Wherethe statute empowers a particular minister or official to act, hewill usually be the one and only person who can do so. There isthen no way of escaping the responsibility, even if he is personallyinterested. Transfer of responsibility is, indeed, a recognised typeof ultra vires. In one case it was unsuccessfully argued that theonly minister competent to confirm a compulsory purchase orderfor land for an airport had disqualified himself by showing biasand that the local authority could only apply for a local Act ofParliament.”

32. The Milk Commissioner has been appointed as Registrar inexercise of the powers conferred on the State Government by the Act.The approval from the Registrar is in terms of the resolution of theAdministrative Committee constituted in terms of Dairy Service Rules.The exercise of the powers under the Act are conferred by designation.The prior approval of the punishment is by the Registrar. If, incidentally,the person holding the post of Registrar is also Chairman of theAdministrative Committee, it cannot be said to be illegal as he is exercisingthe powers of Registrar as well as of the Chairman of the AdministrativeCommittee in terms of the Act or the Rules.

33. The Chairman is the Disciplinary Authority in terms of provisoto Rule 15 of the Dairy Service Rules. Though, the AdministrativeCommittee has resolved that the approval of the Dairy MilkCommissioner/Registrar would be mandatory, but such Resolution hasto be read in the context of proviso to Rule 15 which confers jurisdictionon the Chairman of the Administrative Committee to be a DisciplinaryAuthority. Since the Chairman of the Administrative Committee happensto be the Registrar, the decision to impose punishment may not requireprior approval. However, if the prior approval has been sought from theoffice of Registrar, that will not vitiate the proceedings.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

750SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A34. Viewed thus, the power exercised by the Chairman of theCommittee in the instant case cannot be subject to Regulation 87.Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the exercise of power by theChairman of the Committee in the present case.

35. Thus, we do not find any error in the order of punishmentBpassed by the Administrative Committee. We find that the orders passedby the High Court are not based upon correct appreciation of law andfacts. Consequently, the orders are set aside and the writ petition isdismissed. The appeal is allowed.

C

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H