Case: CHAIRMAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE U.P. MILK UNION &amp; DAIRY FEDERATION CENTRALIZED SERVICES Vs. JAGPAL SINGH

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 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 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, 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 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.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]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.(Writ-A No. 45263 of 2011 passed on 9.1.2018) wherein it was held that prior approval of the Board was not obtained as is required under Regulation 87 of the Service 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 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).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 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 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 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.28. In terms of the specific statutory regime referable to Section 122-A 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.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 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.