# Ramesh Chandra v. U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 489 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-01-07 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 15238 of 2025 - **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-v-u-p-co-operative-federation-ltd-ors-54052 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text 1 All. Ramesh Chandra Vs. U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd. & Ors. 489 62. This court is mindful that writ petitioner has reached the age of superannuation and has served the department for 36 years and was promoted in interregnum and at present is drawing provisional pension, thus in view of aforesaid admitted factual position the order of removal from service is disapproved in the facts of this case and the matter is relegated back for fresh decision as no reply in relation to quantum of punishment could be received despite the mandate contained in Rule 14(2) of 1991 Rules. 63. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set-aside and the disciplinary authority is directed to consider imposition of any other punishment, except dismissal or removal from service and pass necessary order in this regard including fresh order in relation to salary for the period of unauthorized absence after putting the petitioner under notice qua the quantum of punishment proposed having removal order been set-aside. 64. The fresh order in pursuance to remand by this court would be passed by the competent authority within a month after receipt of certified copy of this order and all the consequent post retiral dues shall be recalculated and be released within next one month. 65. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed in above said terms. 66. The cost is made easy. ---------- (2026) 1 ILRA 489 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 07.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Writ A No. 15238 of 2025 Ramesh Chandra ...Petitioner Versus U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration (1) Permissibility of awarding two punishment under Reg. 84 of of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. Headnotes (A) Service law - Disciplinary proceeding - Award of two punishments - Reduction in rank as well as recovery of amount to compensate the pecuniary loss - Permissibility. (E-1) Held : Regulation 84 of the Regulations 1975 provides regarding the penalties, i.e., the recovery from pay or security deposit to compensate pecuniary loss caused to the cooperative society provided in clause (d) of the Regulation 84(i), and reduction in rank has been provided in clause (e) of the Regulation 84(i). From the bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that out of the penalties in clauses (d) and (e) of Regulation 84 (i), only one punishment can be awarded - The impugned order dated 15.1.2024 reveals that two 490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES punishments are awarded- first one is of recovery of amount provided therein as compensation for causing loss to the Co-operative Society and secondly, the reduction in rank, which is impermissible as per the provisions of Regulation 84 of the Regulations 1975, as well as the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court. [Para 11 and 13] List of Acts U.P. Co-operative Socieities Employees Service Regulations, 1975 - Regulation 84. List of Keywords Punishment, Recovery, Loss to Federation, Inquiry report, Reduction in rank. Case Arising From Impugned order dated 15.01.2024 passed by the disciplinary authority. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant : Shishir Chandra. Advs. for the Respondents : Shireesh Kumar. (Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Shishir Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shireesh Kumar, learned for the respondents. 2. The present petition has been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 15.1.2024 passed by the Managing Director of the respondent Federation, whereby an amount of Rs.73,06,857.03 has been shown to be recovered to compensate the loss to the Federation, as well as he was also awarded another punishment of reduction in rank. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, who was working as a Store In-charge in the respondent Department, was placed under suspension in the year 2021, and thereafter, an inquiry officer was appointed, who served the charge sheet with a delay of 7 months, on 23rd April 2022. Further submission is that the petitioner filed reply to the charge sheet, and since the inquiry officer did not proceed, he filed Writ-A No.6848 of 2022, challenging the suspension order and further prayed for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. He added that subsequently, the inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report, and thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the order impugned dated 15.1.2024. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the disciplinary authority, while passing the order dated 15.1.2024, has awarded two punishments; one for recovery of certain amount as to compensate the pecuniary loss stated to have caused to the Federation and secondly reduction in rank. He added that Regulation 84 of the U.P. Co-operative Socieities Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation 1975') provides the various penalties. 5. Regulation 84 of the Regulations, 1975 is extracted as under:- 1 All. Ramesh Chandra Vs. U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd. & Ors. 491 "84. Penalties. (i) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in any other regulation, an employee who commits a breach of duty enjoined upon him or has been convicted for criminal offence or an offence under section 103 of the Act or does anything prohibited by these regulations shall be liable to be punished by any one of the following penalties: - (a)censure, (b)with holding of increment. (c)fine on an employee of Category IV (peon, chaukidar, etc.). (d)recovery from pay or security deposit to compensate in whole or in part for any pecuniary loss caused to the co-operative society by the employee's conduct, (e)reduction in rank or grades held substantively by the employee. (f)removal from service, or (g)dismissal from service. (ii) Copy of order of the punishment shall invariably be given to the employee concerned and entry to this effect shall be made in the service record of the employee. (iii)No penalty except censure shall be imposed unless a show cause notice has been given to the employee and he has either failed to reply within the specified time or his reply has been found to be unsatisfactory by the punishing authority. (iv)(a) The charge-sheeted employee shall be awarded punishment by the appropriate authority according to the seriousness of the offence: Provided that no penalty under sub-clause (e), (f) or (g) of clause (i) shall be imposed without recourse to disciplinary proceedings. (b)No employee shall be removed or dismissed by an authority other than by which he was appointed unless the appointing authority has made prior delegation of such authority to such other person or authority in writing. (v) The appointing authority or person authorised by him while passing orders for stoppage of increments shall state the period for which it is stopped and whether it shall have effect of postponing future increments or promotion." 6. Referring the aforesaid provisions, he submitted that Regulation 84(i)(d) of the Regulations, 1975 provides the recovery from pay or security deposit to compensate in whole or in part for any pecuniary loss caused to the co-operative society by the employee's conduct and further Regulation 84(i)(e) is with respect to the penalty of reduction in rank or grade. The order impugned is evident that both penalties have been awarded. 7. He also submitted that this matter travelled upto the Full bench wherein the reference has been decided as follows:- "42. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us as under: (1) Since evident contradiction in the language of Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 and Rule 83 of Rules, 1980, the aforesaid provisions cannot be harmonized, hence Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 shall prevail over Rule 83 of Rules, 1980 and only one of the punishments prescribed can be imposed as specifically stated in Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975. (2) The Division Bench judgment in Virendra Kumar Gupta's case (supra) lays down correct law and otherwise view expressed by 492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES learned Single Judge in Satya Narain Mishra's case (supra) as also expressed in the Reference order is not correct position of law. Since, as per Regulation 84 of 'Service Regulations of 1975 only one punishment can be awarded and in the instant case, petitioner has been awarded more than one punishment vide impugned order dated 15.01.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 in view of Rule-83 (1) of 'Service Rules of 1980', hence in view of aforesaid settled law, punishment order dated 15.01.2024 is not tenable & illegal." 8. He argued that while answering the question, the Full Bench had also held that two punishments cannot be awarded, as Regulation 84 of the Regulations 1975 provides for awarding only one punishment. He pointed out that from the order impugned itself, it is apparent that two punishments have been awarded; first one is recovery of the amount to compensate the loss and the second one is of reduction in rank, which not only goes against the provision of Regulation 84 of the Regulation 1975 but also against the settled proposition of law by the Full Bench of this Court. Therefore, the submission is that the order impugned, is liable to be quashed. 9. Per contra, Mr. Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Federation, has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that only one punishment has been awarded, i.e., reduction in rank. He has drawn attention towards the third paragraph at page 34 of the paper book and submitted that the recovery of the amount mentioned in the impugned order dated 15.1.2024 is not, in fact, a punishment as defined in the penalty under Regulation 84 but merely the amount, which has been computed for recovery against the petitioner for adjustment of the loss occurred to the Federation. Therefore, submission is that no interference is warranted in the order dated 15.1.2024. 10. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that vide the order dated 15.1.2024, the disciplinary authority, i.e., the Managing Director of the Federation has passed the order for recovery of amount to the tune of Rs.73,06,857.03 and further another punishment has been awarded, i.e., reduction in rank. 11. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:- "अतः एतद् द्वारा उपरोक्त प्रकरण में संघ को हुयी कुल पवत्तीय िर्त 73,06,857.03 (रुपये र्तहत्तर लाि छः हिार आठ सौ सत्तावन रूपये तीन पैसा) की िर्तपूर्तत श्री रमेश चन्र से क्रकये िाने के आदेश के साथ उपरोक्त कृत्य/अर्नसमयतता हेतु श्री रमेश चन्र को सहायक / भडिारनायक के मूल वेतन पर प्रत्यावर्तत क्रकये िाने के दडि के साथ उनके पवरुद्र् स्ट्थापपत अनुशासर्नक कायतवाही को समाप्त करते हुये सेवा में बहाल क्रकया िाता है। श्री रमेश चन्र को जिला जिला कायातलय, लसलतपुर में तैनात क्रकया िाता है।" 12. While this Court examines the impugned order in facts and law, it is apparent that Regulation 84 of the Regulations 1975 provides regarding the penalties, i.e., the recovery from pay or security deposit to compensate pecuniary loss caused to the cooperative society provided in 1 All. Mohd. Haneef & Ors. Vs. D.D.C. Sultanpur 493 clause (d) of the Regulation 84(i), and reduction in rank has been provided in clause (e) of the Regulation 84(i). From the bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that out of the penalties in clauses (d) and (e) of Regulation 84 (i), only one punishment can be awarded. 13. This Court has also noticed that the reference made to the Full Bench has also been answered, clarifying the contradiction in the language of Regulation 84 of Regulations 1975 wherein it has been held that, as per Regulation 84 of the Regulations 1975, only one punishment can be awarded. 14. The impugned order dated 15.1.2024 reveals that two punishments are awarded- first one is of recovery of amount provided therein as compensation for causing loss to the Co-operative Society and secondly, the reduction in rank, which is impermissible as per the provisions of Regulation 84 of the Regulations 1975, as well as the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court. 15. After the aforesaid observations, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter may be relegated to respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order, to which the learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection. 16. In view of the aforesaid, the order impugned dated 15.1.2024 is hereby quashed. 17. The matter is relegated back to the respondent no.2, Managing Director of the Federation to pass a fresh order, on the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 18. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is hereby allowed. ---------- (2026) 1 ILRA 493 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 19.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. Writ B No. 1159 of 1982 Mohd. Haneef & Ors. ...Petitioner Versus D.D.C. Sultanpur ...Respondent Issue(s) for consideration (i) Whether the consolidation authorities have power to ignore the sale deed which was not challenged or objected by its executor?