Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45400 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1739 of 2016 Petitioner :- Shiv Shankar Rawat Respondent :- Provincial Co-Operative Federation Of Up Thru M.D. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- Shiresh Kumar,Gaurav Mehrotra,Utsav Mishra Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Anuradha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for therespondents No.1 & 2. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally. 3. Under challenge is the punishment order dated 20.12.2012, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the petitioner has been imposed with a penalty of recovery, reversion and censure (special adverse entry). The order dated 23.06.2015 passed by the appellate authority has also been challenged. 4. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are two rules/regulations governing the service conditions of the employees working in the U.P. Cooperative Federation namely U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited Karmachari Sewa Niyamawali, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1980') and U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations, 1975'). 5. Contention is that a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Pancham Ram Yadav vs The U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd. through Managing Director & Anr in Special Appeal No.435 of 2008 has held that in case of conflict between the Regulations, 1975 and Rules, 1980, the Regulations, 1975 shall prevail. 6. Contention is that although the Rules, 1980 provide for imposition of more than one punishment yet the Regulations, 1975 only prescribe any one penalty and as by means of the impugned order two penalties have been imposed consequently keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pancham Ram Yadav (supra) it is the Rules, 1975 which would be applicable and as such imposition of more than one penalty by means of the impugned punishment order dated 20.12.2012 vitiates the impugned order. 7. Aforesaid proposition of law is not disputed by Ms. Anuradha, Advocate holding brief of Shri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. Considering that as the impugned punishment order is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench judgment in the case of Pancham Ram Yadav (supra), the order impugned dated 20.12.2012 and the appellate order dated 23.06.2015, copies of which are Annexures-1 & 2 to the petition are quashed. The petition is allowed. 9. The competent authority shall proceed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law under relevant rules. 10. Let such an order by passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Pachhere/- Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench