Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26756 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5045 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vivek Yadav Respondent :- U.P. Co Operative Federation Ltd. Thru. Managing Director And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- Shireesh Kumar Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Shishir Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anindya Shastri who has filed 'Vakalatnama' for opposite parties. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed following relief : "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by respondent No.2 (as contained in Annexure No.1) awarding 2 penalties to the petitioner viz. (i) recovery of Rs.56.95 Lakhs & loss of interest thereon, under the 'joint liability determination' policy; & (ii) 'special adverse (Censure) entry'; in a most illegal, arbitrary & high-handed manner which is also de-hors the service rules; in as much as; the service rules provide for imposition of only 1 penalty." 3. Attention has been drawn towards the judgment and order dated 12.2.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 1557 of 2025 : Devendra Kumar vs. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Lko. thru its Managing Director and another which reads as under: "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of wrong legal advice, the petitioner has filed an appeal against the punishment order dated 22.02.2024, which has been withdrawn by means of his application dated 11.02.2025. 3.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." 4.There is consensus at Bar that the issue in question is squarely covered with the judgment of this Court passed in Writ-A No. 1557 of 2025 in re: Devendra Kumar (supra). 5. 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 23.09.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition is quashed. The petition is allowed. 6. The competent authority shall proceed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law under relevant rules. 7. Let such an order by passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. . [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.] Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Om Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench