Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8972 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1557 of 2025 Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Respondent :- U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Managing Dir. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- Shireesh Kumar Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. By means of the supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner states that earlier on account of wrong legal advice, the petitioner has filed an appeal against the punishment order dated 22.02.2024, which has been withdrawn by means of his application dated 11.02.2025. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sunil Sharma, Advocate who files his vakalatnama on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2. 4. Under challenge is the punishment order dated 22.02.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the petitioner has been imposed with a penalty of recovery and withholding three increments permanently. 5. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are two rules/regulations governing the service conditions of the employees working in the U.P. Cooperative Federation namely U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited Karmachari Sewa Niyamawali, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1980') and U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations, 1975'). 6. Contention is that a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Pancham Ram Yadav vs The U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd. 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. 7. Contention is that although the Rules, 1980 provide for imposition of more than one punishment yet the Regulations, 1975 only prescribe any one penalty and as by means of the impugned order two penalties have been imposed consequently keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pancham Ram Yadav (supra) it is the Rules, 1975 which would be applicable and as such imposition of two penalties by means of the impugned punishment order dated 22.02.2024 vitiates the impugned order. 8. Aforesaid proposition of law is not disputed by Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. Considering that as the impugned punishment order is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench judgment in the case of Pancham Ram Yadav (supra), the order impugned dated 22.02.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition is quashed. The petition is allowed. 10. The competent authority shall proceed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law under relevant rules. 11. 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 :- 12.2.2025 prateek Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench