caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Chairman Administrative … vs Jagpal Singh on 23 March, 2021Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta, S. Ravindra Bhat
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 298 OF 2021)
(DIARY NO. 4183 OF 2020)
CHAIRMAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE U.P. …..APPELLANT
MILK UNION & DAIRY FEDERATION
CENTRALIZED SERVICES
VERSUS
JAGPAL SINGH ….RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench dated 26.8.2019, affirming the order passed by the
learned Single 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 respondent 1 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 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
1 hereinafter referred to as ‘employee’
1
Commissioner (Dairy Milk), Lucknow, designated as Registrar by
the State Government on the same day.
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. 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 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) 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
2
said order which was challenged by the employee by way of a writ
petition before the High Court.
4. The learned Single Bench while deciding the Writ Petition held that
the order of punishment was passed without following the due
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 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 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:
“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 Centralized
Services, which were promulgated by the U.P. Dairy
Federation & Milk Union Centralized Services Rules, 1984,
3
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 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:
“UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITES ACT, 19652
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-operative society or a class of co-
operative societies and any 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.
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 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.
(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
2 for short, the ‘Act’
4
any regulations made under Section 121.
3
122-A. Centralisation of certain services.- (1)
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 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 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 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
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
THE UTTAR PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
RULES, 19684
2. Definitions- In these rules, unless the context otherwise
requires —-
(a) *** ***
(b) “Apex Society”, “Apex Level Society” or “State Level Co-
operative Society” means-
(1) to (3) ******
3 subs.by U.P. Act 17 of 1977 (w.e.f.3-10-1975)
4 for short, ‘1968 Rules’
5
(4) Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd.,
Lucknow;
xx xx xx
*[389-A. The authority or authorities under Section 122
may be 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. 31 st Aug., 1971, p.2.”
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 or primary societies. Later, the Uttar Pradesh
Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 5 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 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) *** ***
(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.
5 for short, the ‘Service Regulations’
6
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
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.
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 19th May, 1976 in exercise of powers conferred
under sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Act.
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 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 Agricultural
7
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 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 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
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);
(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;
(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 the post of Managing Director, Chief
6 for short, the ‘Dairy Service Rules’
8
Commercial Manager and 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 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 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:
(i) The Registrar …Chairman
(ii) to (viii) *** ***
(ix) Managing Director of the Federation …Member-Secre-
tary
Note. – In case the post of the Registrar and the Manag-
ing 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 nomi-
nation of any other officer or the Federation by the Managing
Director.
5. Constitution of Administrative Committee. – The
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
(iii) A nominee of the Managing Director of the Federation –
Member-Secretary.
xx xx xx
9. Powers and duties of the Authority. – (1) The
Authority with the prior approval of the State government
9
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.
(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 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;
(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.
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) *** ***
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 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 vide
10
Notification No. 2295 dated 9.12.2002. The provision reads as
under:
“1. Short title, commencement and application – (1) These
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 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:-
“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.”
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 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
11
that till the enforcement of such regulations, 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 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 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 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.”
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 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
7 Writ-A No. 45263 of 2011 passed on 9.1.2018
12
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 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. 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 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 were put out
of purview of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees 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 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 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
13
31.1.2000 by the Dairy Commissioner/Registrar and the
resolution dated 20.9.1984 was approved. Hence, till
regulations are framed, 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 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 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
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 Soci-
eties. Later, Regulation 87 of the Service Regulations mandated
that no order of punishment could be passed without prior concur-
14
rence of the Board. However, by notification dated 17.11.1979 is-
sued again in terms of the powers conferred on the State Govern-
ment 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 opera-
tion 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 of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional Ser-
vice Board. A Selection Committee was constituted in respect of
Category I and II employees. Thereafter, it was the Selection Com-
mittee who was empowered for the purpose of recruitment, train-
ing and disciplinary control of the employees of Dairy Co-operative
Societies until the Dairy Service Rules came into force upon publi-
cation 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 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 super-
vision over the members of the Service in terms of Rule 10(i) of the
Dairy Service Rules. Such Administrative Committee constituted
under Rule 5 of the Dairy Service Rules is the Appointing Authority
15
till the time Regulations are framed in terms of Rule 15 of the said
Rules. Therefore, the Resolution dated 20.9.1984 will not deter-
mine the Appointing or Disciplinary Authority, the same being cov-
ered the Statutory Rule namely the Dairy Service Rules.
20. The Dairy Service Rules have been framed in exercise of the juris-
diction 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 have precedence over the Regulations,
which are framed or are required to be framed either by the Regis-
trar 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 Ap-
pointing and 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-opera-
tive 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 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
16
the Dairy Service Rules which would be applicable.
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 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 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
Commissioner/Registrar prior to imposing penalty. Such decision of
the Administrative Committee is self-regulatory and has been ap-
plied 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
17
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. 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 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.
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 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
18
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.
29. It would, therefore, 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.
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
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 Adminis-
trative Committee and that the Milk Commissioner are one and the
same person, which vitiates the order of punishment passed. We
do not find any merit in the said finding. Sir William Wade in
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.
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,
19
even if he is personally 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
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. 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.
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 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
20
approval has been sought from the office of Registrar, that will not
vitiate the proceedings.
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 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 peti-
tion is dismissed. The appeal is allowed.
………………………………………J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
………………………………………J.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
………………………………………J.
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 23, 2021.
21
Comments