JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chauhan, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri R.C. Srivastava, senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pradeep Chandra. 2. The Petitioner is an employee of the U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited, Lucknow and is governed by Regulations, known as the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Service Rules). 3. Disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner were initiated and ultimately the Petitioner was punished with: (a) recovery of a sum of Rs. 16082.36 from the salary of the Petitioner by making a deduction of 1/3rd salary each month; (b) stoppage of two annual increments, and (c) censure entry in character roll. 4. Regulation 84(i) of the service Regulations relates to imposition of penalty, which is as extracted below: 84. Penalties: (i) without prejudice to the provision contained in any other regulation, an employee who commits a breach of duty enjoined upon him or has been convicted for criminal offence or an offence u/s 103 of the Act or does anything prohibited by these regulations shall be liable to be punished by any one of the following penalties: (a) censure (b) without holding of increment, (c) fine on an employee of category IV (Peon chaukidar etc., (d) recovery from pay or security deposit to compensate in whole or in part for any pecuniary loss caused to the cooperative society by the employee's conduct. (e) reduction in rank or grade held substantively by the employee, (f) removal from service, or (g) dismissal from service. Under the aforesaid Regulation, the punishing authority is authorised to impose any one of the penalties provided there under. Censure, withholding of increment and recovery from pay are the penalties provided under the aforesaid Regulation. 5. The impugned order providing for the three penalties cannot be sustained, but since against the said order appeal is pending before the appellate authority, I am not inclined to pass any order on the merits of the punishment. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the appeal is still pending and has not been decided and during the pendency of the appeal the Respondent Federation has proceeded for recovery of the amount and also for the stoppage of the annual increment and in this connection has passed the order dated 21-4-1992. 7. When the appeal is pending, then it is not proper to give effect to the order appealed against. 7. When the appeal is pending, then it is not proper to give effect to the order appealed against. In this view of the matter, the order dated 21-4-1992 cannot be sustained. The order dated 21-4- 1992 is hereby quashed and the Respondents are hereby restrained from giving effect to the order of punishment until the appeal of the Petitioner is decided. 8 The writ petition is accordingly finally disposed of.