CHAIRMAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE U.P. MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATION CENTRALIZED SERVICESversusJAGPAL SINGH

                          [2021] 3 S.C.R. 729                            729


     CHAIRMAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE U.P.                              A
    MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATION CENTRALIZED
                     SERVICES
                        v.
                          JAGPAL SINGH
                                                                         B
                    (Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2021)
                           MARCH 23, 2021
        [UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, HEMANT GUPTA
                  AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
       Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Employees Service            C
Regulations, 1975: Regn. 87 – Prior approval – Administrative
Committee in exercise of powers conferred under r.10 r/w proviso
to r.15 passed office order on 8.8.2016 that prior to imposing of
penalty, the approval of Dairy Milk Commissioner/Registrar would
be mandatory – In terms of the said Circular, the order of punishment    D
was passed against respondent-employee after approval from the
Dairy Milk Commissioner discharging functions as the Registrar –
Challenge against – Held: 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
                                                                         E
Registrar is also Chairman of the Administrative Committee, it cannot
be said to be illegal as he is exercising the powers of Registrar as
well as of the Chairman of the Administrative Committee in terms of
the Act or the Rules – The Chairman is the Disciplinary Authority in
terms of proviso to r.15 of the Dairy Service Rules – Though, the
Administrative Committee has resolved that the approval of the Dairy     F
Milk Commissioner/Registrar would be mandatory, but such
Resolution has to be read in the context of proviso to r.15 which
confers jurisdiction on Chairman of the Administrative Committee
to be a Disciplinary Authority – Since the Chairman of the
Administrative Committee happens to be the Registrar, the decision       G
to impose punishment may not require prior approval – However, if
prior approval has been sought from the office of Registrar, that
will not vitiate the proceedings – There is nothing wrong in the
exercise of power by the Chairman of the Committee – Thus, there
is no error in the order of punishment passed by the Administrative
                                                                         H
                                 729
730            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     Committee – Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Dairy Federation and Milk
      Union Centralised Service Rules, 1984 – ss.10, 15.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
             HELD : 1. The Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Dairy
      Federation and Milk Union Centralised Service Rules, 1984
B     came to be published in the U.P. Government Gazette on
      29.8.1984. As per the said Rules, the Administrative Committee
      was to consist of a Managing Director of the Federation, a nominee
      of the Registrar not below the rank of Class I Officer, a nominee
      of the Managing Director of the Federation and a Member
C     Secretary. Rule 15 of the Dairy Service Rules contemplates that
      the Appointing Authority and the authority exercising disciplinary
      control over the members of the service 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 Appointing Authority and
D     would 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 powers
      conferred under Rule 10 read with proviso to Rule 15 passed an
      office order on 8.8.2016 that prior to imposing of penalty, the
E     approval of Dairy Milk Commissioner/Registrar would be
      mandatory. It is in terms of the said Circular that the order of
      punishment was passed against the employee after approval from
      the Commissioner (Dairy Milk), discharging functions as the
      Registrar. [Paras 14, 15][743-G; 744-C]
F            3. Section 122 of the Act and Rule 389-A of the 1968 Rules
      empower the State Government to constitute an authority for
      recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees
      of Co-operative Societies. By virtue of notification dated 4.3.1972,
      Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional Service Board was
G     constituted for the purpose of recruiting, training and exercising
      disciplinary control of the employees of Apex Level Societies,
      Central or Primary Societies. Later, Regulation 87 of the Service
      Regulations mandated that no order of punishment could be
      passed without prior concurrence of the Board. However, by
      notification dated 17.11.1979 issued again in terms of the powers
H
CHAIRMAN ADMIN. COMM. U.P. MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATION            731
          CENTRALIZED SERVICES v. JAGPAL SINGH


conferred on the State Government under Section 122 of the Act      A
and Rule 389-A of the 1968 Rules, the Apex Level Society i.e.
Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation, Central or Primary
Milk Societies, whose area of operation extends to more than
one district or State and Co-operative Milk Unions, including
Kanpur Co-operative Milk Board, were taken out of the control
                                                                    B
of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional Service Board. A
Selection Committee was constituted in respect of Category I
and II employees. Thereafter, it was the Selection Committee
who was empowered for the purpose of recruitment, training and
disciplinary control of the employees of Dairy Co-operative
Societies until the Dairy Service Rules came into force upon        C
publication of the Gazette on 29.8.1984 and not the Service
Regulations since it ceased to apply vide notification 17.11.1979
issued by the State. The Resolution dated 20.09.1984 by the Cadre
Authority which provided that the service conditions of the
members of the Centralised Service shall be governed by the
                                                                    D
1975 Regulations will not revive the applicability of Regulation
87 of the Service Regulations as Rule 15 of the Dairy Service
Rules contemplate the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority.
[Para 18][745-G-H; 746-A-D]
       4. The Administrative Committee exercises overall control
and supervision over the members of the Service in terms of         E
Rule 10(i) of the Dairy Service Rules. Such Administrative
Committee constituted under Rule 5 of the Dairy Service Rules
is the Appointing Authority till the time Regulations are framed
in terms of Rule 15 of the said Rules. Therefore, the Resolution
dated 20.9.1984 will not determine the Appointing or Disciplinary   F
Authority, the same being covered the Statutory Rule namely
the Dairy Service Rules. The Dairy Service Rules have been
framed in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under Section
122A of the Act. The Regulations can be framed by the Registrar
or the State either under Section 121 or 122 of the Act or in
terms of Rule 9 of the Dairy Service Rules. Such Rules would        G
have precedence over the Regulations, which are framed or are
required to be framed either by the Registrar or by the Authority
entrusted with the task of recruitment, training and disciplinary
control. Therefore, in terms of proviso to Rule 15, the Chairman
of the Administrative Committee is the Appointing and               H
732           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the Service Regulations would be
      inapplicable to determine the Appointing Authority and/or the
      Disciplinary Authority in respect of the employees of Co-operative
      Milk Societies. [Paras 19, 20][746-E-H; 747-A]
             5. Regulation 106 of the Service Regulations empowers
B     the State Government or the Registrar to pass such orders not
      inconsistent with the Regulations in respect of termination,
      dismissal or removal. The punishment imposed is of reversion
      and not of either termination, dismissal or removal. Therefore,
      Regulation 106 will not be applicable. There is also no
      inconsistency or difficulty which the State Government or
C     Registrar is empowered to remove in exercise of powers
      conferred under Regulation 106. The Administrative Committee
      however passed an office order on 8.8.2016 that the Chairman
      shall seek prior approval of Dairy Milk Commissioner/Registrar
      prior to imposing penalty. Such decision of the Administrative
D     Committee is self-regulatory and has been applied by the
      Administrative Committee in the present case as well while
      seeking 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 power
E     conferred under Section 122 of the 1965 Act. Till the time 1975
      Regulations were framed, the entire statutory regime, in terms
      of which service conditions including disciplinary control of
      employees in a co-operative society or class of co-operative
      societies could be regulated, was in terms of Sections 121 and
      122 of the 1965 Act. Regulation 87 of 1975 Regulations, therefore,
F     has 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 1965
      Act which now provided for centralization of services. This Section
      opens with a non-obstante clause and thus, the intent is to give
G     an overriding effect over the general regime contemplated by
      Sections 121 and 122 of the 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 of such co-operative society
      or class of co-operative societies as the Government may think
H     fit and prescribe inter alia conditions of service including
CHAIRMAN ADMIN. COMM. U.P. MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATION             733
          CENTRALIZED SERVICES v. JAGPAL SINGH


appointment and removal of persons appointed to such service.        A
[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 the
1984 Rules stipulates that the appointing authority and the
authority exercising disciplinary control over the members of the    B
service shall be such as may be laid down in the Regulations and
till such Regulations are brought in force, ‘the Chairman of the
Committee shall be the appointing authority and the authority
exercising disciplinary control over them’. [Para 27][748-C-D]
      9. In terms of the specific statutory regime referable to      C
Section 122-A of the 1965 Act, Rule 15 thus, would be the
governing principle rather than Regulation 87 framed in exercise
of regulation making power referable to the general dispensation
under Sections 121 and 122 of the 1965 Act. Rule 15 does not
contemplate that the Chairman of the Committee is required to
have any prior concurrence of any authority. It would, therefore,    D
be incorrect to rely upon or import the principles of Rule 87 in
substitution 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 the
Office Order dated 08.08.2016 which are pure departmental            E
executive instructions cannot displace statutory Rule 15 and the
process contemplated therein and import a requirement which
would be in the teeth of Rule 15. [Para 30][748-G]
      11. The Milk Commissioner has been appointed as
Registrar in exercise of the powers conferred on the State           F
Government by the Act. The approval from the Registrar is in
terms of the resolution of the Administrative 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,    G
the person holding the post of Registrar is also Chairman of the
Administrative Committee, it cannot be said to be illegal as he is
exercising the powers of Registrar as well as of the Chairman of
the Administrative Committee in terms of the Act or the Rules.
[Para 32][749-E-F]
                                                                     H
734             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A           12. The Chairman is the Disciplinary Authority in terms of
      proviso to Rule 15 of the Dairy Service Rules. Though, the
      Administrative Committee has resolved that the approval of the
      Dairy Milk Commissioner/Registrar would be mandatory, but
      such Resolution has to be read in the context of proviso to Rule
      15 which confers jurisdiction on the Chairman of the
B
      Administrative Committee to be a Disciplinary Authority. Since
      the Chairman of the Administrative Committee happens to be
      the Registrar, the decision to impose punishment may not require
      prior approval. However, if the prior approval has been sought
      from the office of Registrar, that will not vitiate the proceedings.
C     Viewed thus, the power exercised by the Chairman of the
      Committee in the instant case cannot be subject to Regulation
      87. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the exercise of power
      by the Chairman of the Committee in the present case. Thus,
      there is no error in the order of punishment passed by the
      Administrative Committee. The orders passed by the High Court
D
      are 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.
E                             Case Law Reference
      1985 Suppl. SCC 92               referred to               Para 16
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 49 Of
      2021.

F            From the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2019 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Special Appeal
      Defective No. 344 of 2019.
              Harish Pandey, Adv. for the Appellant.
           S. Rungta, Sudeep Kumar, Pankaj Bhagat, Advs. for the
G     Respondent.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              HEMANT GUPTA, J.
            1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the
H     Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
    CHAIRMAN ADMIN. COMM. U.P. MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATION                  735
      CENTRALIZED SERVICES v. JAGPAL SINGH [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]


Bench dated 26.8.2019, affirming the order passed by the learned Single       A
Bench on 17.5.2019.
       2. The writ petition filed before the High Court was to assail an
order of punishment dated 26.10.2018, whereby the respondent1 was
ordered to be reverted to the minimum pay scale and the period of
suspension was to be considered as a period spent by the employee in          B
service. However, for the said suspension period, the employee was not
found to be entitled to any other pay or allowance except subsistence
allowance and dearness allowance. The order of punishment was passed
after the prior approval of the Commissioner (Dairy Milk), Lucknow,
designated as Registrar by the State Government on the same day.
                                                                              C
       3. The employee was appointed as Executive Trainee in the
Centralised Services on 11.8.1984. After completion of the training period,
he was appointed as Manager Grade-III. The employee was served
with a charge sheet dated 21.4.2015, inter-alia, on the ground that in
addition to two chambers of milk in tankers, one more additional third
hidden chamber having capacity of 310 liters was created by partition.        D
Water was filled in the said additional chamber to maintain total weight
of the vehicle. After weight measurement at the time of unloading of
milk from the two chambers, water from the additional hidden chamber
was discharged. On account of manipulation in the weight measurement,
the Federation suffered financial losses. The employee controverted the       E
said allegations and thus an Inquiry Officer was appointed. In the Inquiry
Report dated 13.6.2018, charges nos. 1 and 3 were found to be partially
proved against the employee. The Inquiry Report was then forwarded
to the employee along with a show cause notice on 25.6.2018. An
opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to him. It is thereafter
that the Managing Director/ Chairman (Administrative Committee)               F
passed an order on 26.10.2018 holding the employee guilty of all the
three 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 which
was challenged by the employee by way of a writ petition before the           G
High Court.
       4. The learned Single Bench while deciding the Writ Petition held
that the order of punishment was passed without following the due
1
    hereinafter referred to as ‘employee’
                                                                              H
736                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     procedure of law, four days prior to the retirement of the employee.
      There was an undue and unexplained haste in passing the impugned
      order without taking prior approval under Regulation 87 of the Service
      Regulations from the competent authority i.e., the Uttar Pradesh Co-
      operative Institutional Service Board. It was further held that the
      punishment order has been passed by the Chairman of the Administrative
B
      Committee and the approval for the punishment has also been granted
      by the same person. Therefore, the present case was found to be an
      example of inappropriate approval given by an incompetent authority.
             5. In the intra-court appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court
      referred to the inquiry reports dated 9.5.2014 and 15.10.2014 to hold
C     that the employee has not been given any disagreement note, rather he
      was exonerated in those reports. However, it is to be noted that the
      Division Bench overlooked the fact that they were preliminary inquiries.
      The Division Bench considering the Regulations 87 and 106 of the Service
      Regulations held as under:
D               “15. On due consideration of the aforesaid, it is clear that basic
                requirement is that the order should not be inconsistent to the
                Regulations of 1975 and the order dated 08.08.2016 is in direct
                conflict to the provisions as contained under Regulation 87 of the
                Regulations of 1975. The respondent-petitioner was a member of
E               Centralized Services, which were promulgated by the U.P. Dairy
                Federation & Milk Union Centralized Services Rules, 1984, which
                came into existence after a period of more than five years and,
                therefore, the notification dated 17.11.1979 cannot be applicable
                to the members of Centralized Services and, as such, the analogy
                given by the Milk Commissioner/Registrar while passing the order
F               dated 08.08.2016 is incorrect.”
            6. Before we consider the respective arguments and the findings
      of the High Court, some of the statutory provisions are reproduced
      hereunder for appreciation of the contentions raised:

G               “UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITES ACT, 1965 2
                121. Power of Registrar to determine terms of employment
                of society. - (1) The Registrar may, from time to time, frame
                regulation to regulate the emoluments and other conditions of
                service including the disciplinary control of employees in a co-
      2
H         for short, the ‘Act’
    CHAIRMAN ADMIN. COMM. U.P. MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATION                       737
      CENTRALIZED SERVICES v. JAGPAL SINGH [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]


          operative society or a class of co-operative societies and any           A
          society to which such terms are applicable, shall comply with those
          regulations and with any orders of the Registrar, issued to secure
          such compliance.
          (2) The regulations framed under sub-section (1) shall be published
          in the Gazette and take effect from the date of such publication.        B
          122. Authority to control employees of co-operative
          societies. - (1) The State Government may constitute any
          authority or authorities, in such manner as may be prescribed, for
          the recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees
          of co-operative societies, or a class of co-operative societies, and     C
          may require such authority or authorities to frame regulations
          regarding recruitment, emoluments, terms and conditions of service
          including disciplinary control of such employees and subject to
          the provisions contained in Section 70, settlement of disputes
          between an employee of a co-operative society and the society.
                                                                                   D
          (2) The regulations framed under sub-section (1) shall be subject
          to the approval of the State Government and shall after such
          approval, be published in the Gazette, and take effect from the
          date of such publication and shall supersede any regulations made
          under Section 121.
          3
           122-A. Centralisation of certain services.- (1)                         E
          Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State
          Government may by rules provide for the creation of one there
          services of such employees of such co-operative societies or class
          of co-operative societies as the Stale Government may think fit,
          common to such co-operative societies and prescribe the method           F
          of recruitment, appointment, removal and other conditions of
          service of persons appointed to any such service.
          (2) When any such service is created, all employees of such
          societies existing on the dale of creation of such service on the
          posts included in such service, shall be deemed to have been
                                                                                   G
          provisionally absorbed in the service. with effect from the date of
          creation of such service:
          Provided that any such employee may, by notice in writing to the
          prescribed authority within the prescribed period, intimate his option
3
    subs.by U.P. Act 17 of 1977 (w.e.f.3-10-1975)                                  H
738                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A               of not becoming a member of such service, and in that event his
                services in the society shall stand determined with effect from
                the date of such notice and he shall be entitled to compensation
                from the society which shall be-
                         xx                  xx                       xx
B
                Section 130. Power to make rules.—
                (1) the State Government may, make rules to carry out the purposes
                of this Act.
                (2)      xx                 xx                        xx
C

                THE UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
                RULES, 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              xx                        xx
                *[389-A. The authority or authorities under Section 122 may be
F               constituted by the State Government by notification published in
                the 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. 31st Aug.,
                1971, p.2.”
G
             7. In terms of Section 122 of the Act and Rule 389-A of the 1968
      Rules, a notification was issued on 4.3.1972 constituting Uttar Pradesh
      Co-operative Institutional Service Board for the purposes of recruitment,
      training and disciplinary control of the employees of apex level, central
      4
H         for short, ‘1968 Rules’
    CHAIRMAN ADMIN. COMM. U.P. MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATION                   739
      CENTRALIZED SERVICES v. JAGPAL SINGH [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]


or primary societies. Later, the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies          A
Employees Service Regulations, 19755 were published in the U.P.
Gazette, Extraordinary on 6.1.1976 in exercise of the powers conferred
under 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 regulations    B
          or the bye-laws of the society concerned to make appointment;
          (iv) ‘Board’ means the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service
          Board;
          (v) to (viii)          ***            ***
                                                                               C
          (ix) ‘Co-operative Society’ means a Co-operative Society placed
          under the purview of the Board by Government Notification No.
          366-C/XII-C-3-36-71, dated March 4, 1972, as amended from
          time to time by notifications issued under Section 122 of the Act
          read with Rule 389(a) of the Rules.
                                                                               D
                       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 prior
          concurrence of the Board.”
      8. Regulation 84 of the Service Regulations provides for penalties       E
such 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 aforesaid
punishment could not be passed except with the prior concurrence of
the Board.                                                                     F
       9. It may be stated that all the powers of Registrar in respect of
all Co-operative Milk Societies were conferred on the Milk Commissioner
Uttar Pradesh by the State Government vide notification dated 19 th May,
1976 in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section 2 of Section 3
of the Act.
                                                                               G
       10. The Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional Service Board
ceased to have jurisdiction to operate regarding recruitment, training
and disciplinary control of the employees of the Apex Level Milk Society
i.e. Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation, Central or Primary Milk
5
    for short, the ‘Service Regulations’                                       H
740                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     Societies vide notification dated 17.11.1979 issued under Section 122
      read with Rule 389-A of the 1968 Rules. Instead, a Selection Committee
      for recruitment of Category I and II employees, as specified by the
      Registrar from time to time, was constituted. Such Selection Committee
      consisted of an officer nominated by the State Government as Chairman;
      a representative of the National Milk Dairy Development Board, Principal
B
      Agricultural Institute, Naini, Allahabad and one Chairman of a Co-
      operative Milk Union or Central Milk Society in the State nominated by
      the State Government as Members; and Managing Director, Pradeshik
      Co-operative Dairy Federation as Member Secretary.
            11. The Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Dairy Federation and Milk
C     Union Centralised Service Rules, 19846 came to be published in the U.P.
      Government Gazette on 29.8.1984. As per the said Rules, the
      Administrative Committee was to consist of a Managing Director of the
      Federation, a nominee of the Registrar not below the rank of Class I
      Officer, a nominee of the Managing Director of the Federation and a
D     Member Secretary. Some of the relevant provisions of the Dairy Service
      Rules read as under:
                “2(a) “Act” means the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act,
                1965.
                (b) “Authority” means the Cadre Authority as constituted in
E               accordance with rule 4 of these rules;
                (c) “Board” means the Committee of Management of the
                Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., Lucknow (and
                includes the Administrator or the Committee of Administrators of
                the Federation);
F
                (d) “Committee” means the Administrative Committee constituted
                in accordance with rule 5 of these rules;
                (e) “Federation” means the Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy
                Federation Ltd., Lucknow;
G               (f) to (l) ***                   ***
                3. Creation of Service. – (1) Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Dairy
                Federation and Milk Unions Centralised Service shall consist of
                all the managerial posts of the Federation and the Unions except

      6
H         for short, the ‘Dairy Service Rules’
CHAIRMAN ADMIN. COMM. U.P. MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATION                   741
  CENTRALIZED SERVICES v. JAGPAL SINGH [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]


    the post of Managing Director, Chief Commercial Manager and            A
    Chief General Manager of the Federation.
    (2) No appointment shall be made to any of the posts falling within
    the purview of the service by the Federation or Union from the
    date of enforcement of these rules:
           Provided that the Government may place on deputation any        B
    officer of the Government on any managerial post of the federation
    or Union:
          Provided further that the services of the persons already in
    the employment of another, Co-operative Society, or a corporation
    or undertaking owned or controlled by the central or State             C
    Government or a body corporate administering a local fund or
    National Dairy Development Board may also be taken on
    deputation.
    4.Constitution of Cadre Authority. - The Cadre Authority shall
    be constituted as under:                                               D
    (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 Managing      E
    Director of the Federation is held by the same officer, the Chairman
    may nominate any member as Member-Secretary and the vacancy
    of member so caused shall be filled by nomination of any other
    officer or the Federation by the Managing Director.
    5. Constitution of Administrative Committee. – The                     F
    Administrative 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 I
    Officer – Member                                                       G
    (iii) A nominee of the Managing Director of the Federation –
    Member-Secretary.
                xx              xx                       xx

                                                                           H
742            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A           9. Powers and duties of the Authority. - (1) The Authority
            with the prior approval of the State government shall frame
            regulations relating to recruitment, training, emoluments, disciplinary
            control and other conditions of service of the members such
            regulations shall come into force from the date of their publication
            in the Gazette.
B
            (2) The Authority shall—
            (i) determine and modify, from time to time, the scales of pay for
            different category of posts, with the approval of the Registrar;
            (ii) settle the dispute and allocate the cost of training, travelling
C           allowance, salary and other allowances for the period of training
            and the cost of recruitment under sub-rule (6) of rule 22;
            (iii) advise the Government and the Registrar on matters relating
            to the Service;

D           (iv) decide such policy matters concerning the Service as may be
            referred to it by the Committee;
            (v) exercise such other powers and perform such other duties
            under these rules, or regulations as may be entrusted to it by the
            Government or the Registrar from time to time.
E           10. Powers and duties of the Committee. - The Committee
            shall—
            (i) exercise overall control and supervision over the members of
            the Service;
            (ii) to (vii) ***   ***
F
                       xx                xx                         xx
            15. Appointing Authority. - Appointing authority of and the
            authority exercising disciplinary control over, the members of the
            service and the Management Trainees and the Executives shall
G           be such as may be laid down in the regulations:
                   Provided that till enforcement of such regulations the
            Chairman of the Committee shall be the appointing authority and
            the authority exercising disciplinary control over them.”
            12. Later, Regulation 106 was inserted in the Service Regulations
H     vide Notification No. 2295 dated 9.12.2002. The provision reads as under:
CHAIRMAN ADMIN. COMM. U.P. MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATION                     743
  CENTRALIZED SERVICES v. JAGPAL SINGH [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]


      “1. Short title, commencement and application - (1) These              A
      regulations may be called the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies
      Employees’ Service (Tenth Amendment) Regulations, 2002.
      (2) They shall take effect from the date of their publication in the
      U.P. Gazette.
      (3) They shall apply to all the Employees of Co-operative Societies    B
      in Uttar Pradesh.
      2. Insertion of new Regulation. – In the Uttar Pradesh Co-
      operative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975 after
      Regulation 105 the following regulation shall be inserted, namely:-
                                                                             C
          “106. The State Government or the Registrar may pass such
          orders not inconsistent with these Regulations as it or he deems
          necessary just and proper to remove any difficulty arising in
          relation to emoluments, terms and conditions of service,
          appointment or re-appointment, termination, dismissal or
          removal, deputation or merger.”                                    D
       13. The Cadre Authority was required to frame regulations in
terms of Rule 9 of the Dairy Service Rules with the prior approval of the
State 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 exercise          E
overall control and supervision over the members of the service. Rule
15 of the Dairy Service Rules contemplated that the Appointing Authority
and the authority exercising disciplinary control over the members of the
service shall be such as may be laid down in the regulations. However,
the proviso contemplated that till the enforcement of such regulations,      F
the Chairman of the Administrative Committee shall be the Appointing
Authority and would act as the authority exercising disciplinary control
as well.
       14. The Administrative Committee in exercise of the powers
conferred under Rule 10 read with proviso to Rule 15 passed an office
                                                                             G
order on 8.8.2016 that prior to imposing of penalty, the approval of Dairy
Milk Commissioner/Registrar would be mandatory. The relevant extract
from the said Circular reads as under:
      “… Therefore, in the matter of employees of Centralised Service
      Cadre, until the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Society
                                                                             H
744                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A               Employees Service Rules, 1975 are applicable, till then prior to
                imposing of penalty the approval of Dairy Milk Commissioner/
                Registrar is mandatory.
                Therefore, the Chairman, Administrative Committee, Uttar
                Pradesh Cooperative Dairy Federation and Dairy Milk Federation
B               Centralised Service Cadre, PCDF Hqrs., Lucknow is hereby
                directed that prior to imposing penalty against the members of
                aforesaid cadre the prior approval of Dairy Milk Commissioner/
                Registrar under the provisions of Regulation 87 of Uttar Pradesh
                Cooperative Society Employees Service Rules, 1975 may be
                obtained necessarily.”
C
            15. It is in terms of the said Circular that the order of punishment
      was 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 of
D     the High Court in Chandra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.7 wherein
      it was held that prior approval of the Board was not obtained as is required
      under Regulation 87 of the Service Regulations. It was noted that though
      in terms of notification dated 17.11.1979 Service Regulations ceased to
      apply, but provisions as were existing before the provisions of Service
      Regulations, would be applicable to the employees of the Centralised
E     Services in terms of the resolution dated 20.9.1984. It was also held that
      the notification dated 17.11.1979 was not mentioned in the resolution
      dated 20.9.1984. Thus, it was concluded that the order of punishment
      without approval of the Board was not legal in terms of Regulation 87 of
      the Service Regulations. Hence, the order of punishment was quashed.
F     The relevant extract from Chandra Pal Singh reads as under:
                “Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties
                and perused the record. As far as the approval part is concerned,
                admittedly, no approval/concurrence was obtained by the Board
                before passing the order of dismissal from service. In view of the
G               provision of Regulation 87 of U.P. Cooperative Societies
                Employees Service Regulation 1975, concurrence of the Board is
                required before passing the order of dismissal. According to
                notification dated 17.11.1979, Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy
                Federation Ltd. including the Primary Milk Cooperative Society
      7
H         Writ-A No. 45263 of 2011 passed on 9.1.2018
CHAIRMAN ADMIN. COMM. U.P. MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATION                     745
  CENTRALIZED SERVICES v. JAGPAL SINGH [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]


      were put out of purview of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees        A
      Service Regulation 1975 with respect to the recruitment, training
      and disciplinary control and by the same notification, selection
      committee was constituted for category 1 and 2 employees of
      cooperative dairy federation. Hence, in case of the Centralised
      Services, the provision of Regulation 87 ceased to apply and
                                                                             B
      whatever provision was applicable before the provision of
      Regulation 1975 was adopted, which will be applicable to the
      employees of Centralised Services. When the provision was
      adopted by the resolution of the Board dated 20.9.1984, the
      notification of 1979 was not mentioned in the same and the
      resolution regarding adoption of the provisions of Pradeshik           C
      Cooperative Society Employees Service Regulation 1979 were
      adopted till regulation for the Centralised Services was framed.
      Subsequently, it was clarified and approved vide order dated
      31.1.2000 by the Dairy Commissioner/Registrar and the resolution
      dated 20.9.1984 was approved. Hence, till regulations are framed,
                                                                             D
      the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service
      Regulations 1975 are applicable.”
      17. We find that the High Court in the impugned judgment and in
Chandra Pal Singh proceeded on wrong assumptions of facts and law.
Factually, in the present appeal, the disciplinary proceedings against the
employee were initiated on 21.4.2015. The Inquiry Report was submitted       E
on 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 the
findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. A show cause notice was
subsequently served upon the employee enclosing a copy of the Inquiry
Report on 25.6.2018. The employee was given an opportunity for personal      F
hearing as well. Thereafter, an order of punishment was passed after
obtaining approval from the Commissioner (Dairy Milk).
       18. Section 122 of the Act and Rule 389-A of the 1968 Rules
empower the State Government to constitute an authority for recruitment,
training and disciplinary control of the employees of Co-operative           G
Societies. By virtue of notification dated 4.3.1972, Uttar Pradesh Co-
operative Institutional Service Board was constituted for the purpose of
recruiting, training and exercising disciplinary control of the employees
of Apex Level Societies, Central or Primary Societies. Later, Regulation
87 of the Service Regulations mandated that no order of punishment
                                                                             H
746            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     could be passed without prior concurrence of the Board. However, by
      notification dated 17.11.1979 issued again in terms of the powers
      conferred on the State Government under Section 122 of the Act and
      Rule 389-A of the 1968 Rules, the Apex Level Society i.e. Pradeshik
      Co-operative Dairy Federation, Central or Primary Milk Societies, whose
      area of operation extends to more than one district or State and Co-
B
      operative Milk Unions, including Kanpur Co-operative Milk Board, were
      taken out of the control of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional
      Service Board. A Selection Committee was constituted in respect of
      Category I and II employees. Thereafter, it was the Selection Committee
      who was empowered for the purpose of recruitment, training and
C     disciplinary control of the employees of Dairy Co-operative Societies
      until the Dairy Service Rules came into force upon publication of the
      Gazette on 29.8.1984 and not the Service Regulations since it ceased to
      apply vide notification 17.11.1979 issued by the State. The Resolution
      dated 20.09.1984 by the Cadre Authority which provided that the service
      conditions of the members of the Centralised Service shall be governed
D
      by the 1975 Regulations will not revive the applicability of Regulation 87
      of the Service Regulations as Rule 15 of the Dairy Service Rules
      contemplate the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority.
             19. The Administrative Committee exercises overall control and
      supervision over the members of the Service in terms of Rule 10(i) of
E
      the Dairy Service Rules. Such Administrative Committee constituted
      under Rule 5 of the Dairy Service Rules is the Appointing Authority till
      the time Regulations are framed in terms of Rule 15 of the said Rules.
      Therefore, the Resolution dated 20.9.1984 will not determine the
      Appointing or Disciplinary Authority, the same being covered the Statutory
F     Rule namely the Dairy Service Rules.
             20. The Dairy Service Rules have been framed in exercise of the
      jurisdiction conferred under Section 122A of the Act. The Regulations
      can be framed by the Registrar or the State either under Section 121 or
      122 of the Act or in terms of Rule 9 of the Dairy Service Rules. Such
G     Rules would have precedence over the Regulations, which are framed
      or are required to be framed either by the Registrar or by the Authority
      entrusted with the task of recruitment, training and disciplinary control.
      Therefore, in terms of proviso to Rule 15, the Chairman of the
      Administrative Committee is the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority.
      Hence, the Service Regulations would be inapplicable to determine the
H
CHAIRMAN ADMIN. COMM. U.P. MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATION                       747
  CENTRALIZED SERVICES v. JAGPAL SINGH [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]


Appointing Authority and/or the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the       A
employees of Co-operative Milk Societies.
       21. The attention of the Division Bench in Chandra Pal Singh
was not drawn to Rule 15 of the Dairy Service Rules. The proviso to the
said Rule empowered the Administrative Committee constituted under
Rule 5 as an Appointing Authority and the authority to exercise disciplinary   B
control over the employees of the centralised services till the time
regulations are framed. The resolution dated 20.9.1984 would thus be
applicable in respect of other service conditions. However, with regard
to disciplinary control, it would be the Dairy Service Rules which would
be applicable.
                                                                               C
      22. Regulation 106 of the Service Regulations empowers the State
Government or the Registrar to pass such orders not inconsistent with
the Regulations in respect of termination, dismissal or removal. The
punishment imposed is of reversion and not of either termination, dismissal
or removal. Therefore, Regulation 106 will not be applicable. There is
also no inconsistency or difficulty which the State Government or              D
Registrar is empowered to remove in exercise of powers conferred under
Regulation 106.
      23. In Chandra Pal Singh, the finding of the Division Bench that
the 1979 notification is not mentioned in the resolution of the Cadre
Authority passed on 20.9.1984 is untenable in view of statutory rules          E
contemplating the Appointing Authority. Therefore, the order of
punishment passed by the Chairman of the Administrative Committee in
terms of proviso to Rule 15 is by the competent Disciplinary Authority.
       24. The Administrative Committee however passed an office order
on 8.8.2016 that the Chairman shall seek prior approval of Dairy Milk          F
Commissioner/Registrar prior to imposing penalty. Such decision of the
Administrative Committee is self-regulatory and has been applied by the
Administrative Committee in the present case as well while seeking
prior approval of the Milk Commissioner/Registrar.
      25. As mentioned before, the 1975 Regulations were framed in             G
exercise of power conferred under Section 122 of the 1965 Act. Till the
time 1975 Regulations were framed, the entire statutory regime, in terms
of which service conditions including disciplinary control of employees
in a co-operative society or class of co-operative societies could be
regulated, was in terms of Sections 121 and 122 of the 1965 Act.               H
748            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     Regulation 87 of 1975 Regulations, therefore, has to be seen as part of
      such general statutory regime.
             26. On 16.04.1976, Section 122-A was inserted in the 1965 Act
      which now provided for centralization of services. This Section opens
      with a non-obstante clause and thus, the intent is to give an overriding
B     effect over the general regime contemplated by Sections 121 and 122 of
      the 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 of
      such co-operative society or class of co-operative societies as the
      Government may think fit and prescribe inter alia conditions of service
      including appointment and removal of persons appointed to such service.
C
             27. It was in exercise of power conferred under Section 122-A of
      the 1965 Act that 1984 Rules were framed. Rule 15 of the 1984 Rules
      stipulates that the appointing authority and the authority exercising
      disciplinary control over the members of the service shall be such as
      may be laid down in the Regulations and till such Regulations are brought
D     in force, ‘the Chairman of the Committee shall be the appointing
      authority and the authority exercising disciplinary control over
      them’.
             28. In terms of the specific statutory regime referable to Section
      122-A of the 1965 Act, Rule 15 thus, would be the governing principle
E     rather than Regulation 87 framed in exercise of regulation making power
      referable to the general dispensation under Sections 121 and 122 of the
      1965 Act. Rule 15 does not contemplate that the Chairman of the
      Committee is required to have any prior concurrence of any authority.
             29. It would, therefore, be incorrect to rely upon or import the
F     principles of Rule 87 in substitution of clear intent and mandate of Rule
      15 of 1984 Rules.
             30. The Resolution dated 20.09.1984 or for that matter the Office
      Order dated 08.08.2016 which are pure departmental executive
      instructions cannot displace statutory Rule 15 and the process
G     contemplated therein and import a requirement which would be in the
      teeth of Rule 15.
            31. The learned Single Bench found that the Chairman of the
      Administrative Committee and that the Milk Commissioner are one and
      the same person, which vitiates the order of punishment passed. We do
H
CHAIRMAN ADMIN. COMM. U.P. MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATION                        749
  CENTRALIZED SERVICES v. JAGPAL SINGH [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]


not find any merit in the said finding. Sir William Wade in                     A
his Administrative Law stated:
      “But there are many cases where no substitution is possible, since
      no one else is empowered to act. Natural justice then has to give
      way to necessity; for otherwise there is no means of deciding and
      the machinery of justice or administration will break down.               B
      It was further stated:
      “In administrative cases the same exigency may arise. Where
      the statute empowers a particular minister or official to act, he
      will usually be the one and only person who can do so. There is
      then no way of escaping the responsibility, even if he is personally      C
      interested. Transfer of responsibility is, indeed, a recognised type
      of ultra vires. In one case it was unsuccessfully argued that the
      only minister competent to confirm a compulsory purchase order
      for land for an airport had disqualified himself by showing bias
      and that the local authority could only apply for a local Act of          D
      Parliament.”
      32. The Milk Commissioner has been appointed as Registrar in
exercise of the powers conferred on the State Government by the Act.
The approval from the Registrar is in terms of the resolution of the
Administrative Committee constituted in terms of Dairy Service Rules.           E
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 the
Administrative Committee, it cannot be said to be illegal as he is exercising
the powers of Registrar as well as of the Chairman of the Administrative
Committee in terms of the Act or the Rules.                                     F

       33. The Chairman is the Disciplinary Authority in terms of proviso
to Rule 15 of the Dairy Service Rules. Though, the Administrative
Committee has resolved that the approval of the Dairy Milk
Commissioner/Registrar would be mandatory, but such Resolution has
to be read in the context of proviso to Rule 15 which confers jurisdiction      G
on the Chairman of the Administrative Committee to be a Disciplinary
Authority. Since the Chairman of the Administrative Committee happens
to be the Registrar, the decision to impose punishment may not require
prior approval. However, if the prior approval has been sought from the
office of Registrar, that will not vitiate the proceedings.                     H
750              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A          34. Viewed thus, the power exercised by the Chairman of the
      Committee in the instant case cannot be subject to Regulation 87.
      Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the exercise of power by the
      Chairman of the Committee in the present case.
             35. Thus, we do not find any error in the order of punishment
B     passed by the Administrative Committee. We find that the orders passed
      by the High Court are not based upon correct appreciation of law and
      facts. Consequently, the orders are set aside and the writ petition is
      dismissed. The appeal is allowed.

      Devika Gujral                                            Appeal allowed.
C




D




E




F




G




H