JUDGMENT : By the Court.-This is a respondents' appeal, arising out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated April 1, 2011, allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order of dismissal from service dated June 21, 1996 passed against the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 to this appeal. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has further directed payment of 50% back-wages. Liberty was given to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Project Operator with the Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, Lucknow (for short, 'the PCDF'), an Apex Milk Cooperative Society, as envisaged in Section 2(a-4) of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act of 1965'). A Project Operator in the employ of the PCDF holds a Class-IV post. The writ petitioner was charge-sheeted on charges of embezzlement and misappropriation of the PCDF's money. After a departmental inquiry, he was dismissed from service on June 21, 1996 by an order passed by the Managing Director, PCDF. 3. The writ petition was filed, challenging the order of dismissal from service and for consequential reliefs. After exchange of affidavits, the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated April 1, 2011 on the short ground that the order of dismissal could not be passed by the PCDF without the approval of theUttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Services Board (for short, 'the Board') under Regulation 87 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies' Employees' Service Regulations, 1975 (for short, 'the Regulations of 1975'). The respondents to the writ petition, who are the Managing Director and two other Officers of the PCDF, have filed appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 4. Heard Mr. G.D. Mishra, learned Counsel for the PCDF and Mr. S.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent. 5. It is submitted by Mr. The respondents to the writ petition, who are the Managing Director and two other Officers of the PCDF, have filed appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 4. Heard Mr. G.D. Mishra, learned Counsel for the PCDF and Mr. S.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent. 5. It is submitted by Mr. G.D. Mishra, learned Counsel for the PCDF that the learned Single Judge has recorded a wrong finding to the effect that in the counter-affidavit, the PCDF had taken a stand that the Regulations of 1975 are not applicable to them, whereas what they say in the counter-affidavit is that the Regulations of 1975 apply, except the provisions thereof dealing with recruitment, training and disciplinary control, which have been excluded under the statutory Notification dated November 17, 1979, insofar as the PCDF is concerned. The learned Counsel has drawn the Court's attention to Paragraph No. 27 of the counter-affidavit at Page No. 120 of the Paper-book. It is argued by Mr. Mishra that the State constituted the Board for recruitment, training and disciplinary control of employees of Apex Level Societies, Central or Primary Societies in the exercise of their powers under Section 122 of the Act of 1965 vide Notification dated March 4, 1972, as amended on February 7, 1973. In terms of the Notification dated March 4, 1972, the Regulations of 1975 in their entirety apply, including Regulation 87. By a subsequent Notification dated November 17, 1979, according to the learned Counsel for the PCDF, the Notification dated March 4, 1972 was modified and the Apex Level Milk Society i.e. the PCDF, Central or Primary Milk Societies, whose area of operation extended to more than one district or State and Cooperative Milk Unions, including Kanpur Cooperative Milk Board, have been excluded from the purview of the Board. 6. It is further argued by Mr. G.D. Mishra that the learned Single Judge has committed an error, in taking the view that the order dismissing the writ petitioner from service, is bad in law, because no prior approval of the Board was obtained as required by Regulation 87 of the Regulations of 1975. 6. It is further argued by Mr. G.D. Mishra that the learned Single Judge has committed an error, in taking the view that the order dismissing the writ petitioner from service, is bad in law, because no prior approval of the Board was obtained as required by Regulation 87 of the Regulations of 1975. The learned Counsel submitted that the learned Judge has reached the aforesaid conclusion following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 992 of 1997, titled as 'Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. and another v. Vishwa Nath Gupta and others', decided on August 27, 2007 (for short, 'Vishwa Nath Gupta-I'), which is clearly distinguishable about the point on which the decision turned and received affirmation of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7676 of 2009, titled as 'M.D., Pradeshik Co-op. Dairy Fedn. Ltd. and another v. Vishwanath Gupta', decided on May 19, 2014 (for short, 'Vishwanath Gupta-II'). 7. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, on the other hand, says that the decision of the learned Single is flawless and submits that the decision of the Division Bench in Vishwa Nath Gupta-I, which it has followed to hold prior approval by the Board mandatory, before passing the order of dismissal from service, has received the approval of the Supreme Court in Vishwanath Gupta-II. It is submitted that the PCDF has never been excluded from the regime of the Regulations of 1975, which continue to apply to it. Therefore, the mandatory requirement envisaged under Regulation 87 of the Regulations of 1975 obliging the PCDF to obtain prior concurrence of the Board before inflicting the punishment, enumerated in Regulation 84(i)(g) of the Regulations of 1975 continues to apply. It is, particularly, argued by Mr. S.C. Srivastava that a reading of the Notification dated March 4, 1972, as amended by Notification dated February 7, 1973 issued under Section 122 of the Act of 1965 together with Notification dated November 17, 1979, also issued under Section 122, does not spare a shadow of doubt that the provisions relating to disciplinary control under the Regulations of 1975 have not been excluded. It is submitted that an order of dismissal from service cannot be passed by the PCDF against an employee of theirs without prior concurrence of the Board under Regulation 87. It is submitted that an order of dismissal from service cannot be passed by the PCDF against an employee of theirs without prior concurrence of the Board under Regulation 87. It is also emphasized that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is squarely supported by the principles laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Vishwa Nath Gupta-I. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 9. There is no issue between parties that the PCDF is an Apex Society, as defined under Section 2(a-4) of the Act of 1965, which is governed by the provisions of the said Act. 10. Sections 121 and 122 of the Act of 1965, both of which speak about the framing of service regulations for employees of Cooperative Societies and also about establishment of the Board by the State Government for recruitment, training and disciplinary control of employees of Cooperative Societies or a class of Societies, may be quoted. These read as under: ''Section 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. Section 122. Authority to control employees of co-operative societies.-(1) The State Government may constitute an 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 any regulations made under Section 121.'' 11. In exercise of powers under Section 122 of the Act of 1965 read with Rule 389-A of theUttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968, the State Government constituted the Board vide Notification No. 366-C/XII-C-3-36-71, published in theUttar Pradesh Gazette, Extra-ordinary dated March 4, 1972, which was amended by Notification dated February 7, 1973. The Board was constituted for the purpose of recruitment, training and disciplinary control of employees of Apex Level Societies, Central or Primary Societies, excluding Cooperative Cane Development Unions as also theUttar Pradesh Cooperative Cane Unions Federation Limited, Lucknow. The Apex Level Societies, that were placed under the purview of the Board, are those whose area of operation extended to more than one district or State. Also, placed under the purview of the Board are the District or Central Cooperative Banks, District Cooperative Federations, Cooperative Milk Unions, including Kanpur Milk Board, Cooperative Cane Sugar Factories, Cooperative Textile Mills and Cooperative Housing Federation. The constitution of Board was spelt out by the Notification dated March 4, 1972 and the Board was invested with power to frame regulations regarding recruitment, emoluments, besides terms and conditions of service, including disciplinary control of employees, serving Societies under the purview of the Board. The Board in exercise of its powers, under the Notification creating it, proceeded to frame the Regulations of 1975. The regulations were approved by the Government and published in accordance with sub-Section (2) of Section 122 of the Act of 1965 vide Notification No. 7515 (C)/XII-C-37-74, in theUttar Pradesh Gazette, Extraordinary dated January 6, 1976. 12. Chapter VII of the Regulations of 1975 provides for penalties, disciplinary proceedings and appeals vis-a-vis employees of Cooperative Societies governed by the Regulations. 13. Regulation 84 specifies the various penalties, that may be imposed upon an employee as also the broad grounds, on the basis of which that may be done. Regulation 84(i) reads as under: ''84. 12. Chapter VII of the Regulations of 1975 provides for penalties, disciplinary proceedings and appeals vis-a-vis employees of Cooperative Societies governed by the Regulations. 13. Regulation 84 specifies the various penalties, that may be imposed upon an employee as also the broad grounds, on the basis of which that may be done. Regulation 84(i) reads as under: ''84. Penalties.-(i) Without prejudice to the provisions 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 under Section 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) with 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 co-operative society by the employee's conduct, (e) reduction in rank or grades held substantively by the employee, (f) removal from service, or (g) dismissal from service'' 14. Regulation 87 mandates that an order inflicting penalties under sub-clauses (e) to (g) of Clause (i) of Regulation 84 shall not be made without the prior concurrence of the Board. The Notification dated March 4, 1972, whereby Apex Level Societies, Central or Primary, were placed under the purview of the Board, was modified by a Notification dated November 17, 1979 issued by the State Government in exercise of their powers under sub-Section (1) of Section 122 of the Act of 1965 read with Rule 389-A of the Rules framed under the Act of 1965 vide Notification No. 4326/XII-P-4-79-3(59)-78 dated November 17, 1979. The Notification dated November 17, 1979 reads as under: ''IN pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 122 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (Uttar Pradesh Act No. XI of 1966), read with Rule 389-A of theUttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 and Section 21 of theUttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (Uttar Pradesh Act No. 1, 1904) and in partial modification of notification No. 366-C/XII-C-3-36-71 dated March 4, 1972, the Governor is pleased to order that theUttar Pradesh Co-operative Institutional Service Board constituted under the said notification shall forthwith cease to operate regarding the recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees of the Apex Level Milk Society i.e. the Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation, Central or Primary Milk Societies, whose area of operation extends to more than one district or State and Co-operative Milk Unions, including Kanpur Co-operative Milk Board. 2. Further the Governor, is pleased to constitute a Selection Committee for the recruitment of category I and II employees, as specified by the Registrar from time to time, of the Apex Level Milk Society i.e. the Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation, Central Milk Societies and Co-operative Milk Unions including Kanpur Co-operative Milk Board. The said Selection Committee shall consist of the following members : 1. An officer nominated by the State Government Chairman 2. A representative of National Dairy Development Board Member 3. Principal, Agricultural Institute, Naini, Allahabad Member 4. One Chairman of a Co-operative Milk Union or Central Milk Society in the State nominated by the State Government Member 5. Managing Director, Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Member- Secretary.'' 15. It is the writ petitioner's case that the order of dismissal passed against him is bad on account of prior concurrence of the Board having not been obtained by the PCDF. 16. The learned Counsel for the PCDF has urged that in view of the Notification dated November 17, 1979, the PCDF has been excluded from the purview of the Board and their prior concurrence is not required to impose any penalty upon the writ petitioners. 17. 16. The learned Counsel for the PCDF has urged that in view of the Notification dated November 17, 1979, the PCDF has been excluded from the purview of the Board and their prior concurrence is not required to impose any penalty upon the writ petitioners. 17. We find that the learned Single Judge has based his finding that the writ petitioner's termination is in violation of Regulation 87 of the Regulations of 1975 on account of absence of prior concurrence of the Board, upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Vishwanath Gupta v. Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation and others, 1998(80)FLR 457 (for short, 'Vishwanath Gupta-III'), that was upheld by the Division Bench in Vishwa Nath Gupta-I. 18. In Vishwanath Gupta-III, it was held by the learned Single Judge of this Court: ''4. It appears from the notification dated 17.11.1979 that onlyUttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board was ceased to operate regarding, recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees. It does not say that 1975 Regulations shall cease to operate. On the contrary, it is only the Institutional Service Board which ceased to operate, thereby it means that the jurisdiction which was due to be exercised by the Institutional Service Board, can be exercised by the authority managing such society, whose Jurisdiction was taken away and conferred on the Institutional Service Board by virtue of 1975 Regulations. By reason of the said notification, the jurisdiction of the Committee of Management or controlling authority of the society, was revived and restored within the ambit of 1975 Regulations. The said fact stands clarified by reason of the communication or letter Issued by the Milk Commissioner dated 17th September, 1981 contained in Annexure S.A. 1 to the supplementary-affidavit filed today. Even without clarification as observed earlier, the said Regulations remained applicable which was only specifically mentioned. Therefore, it is not that by virtue of the said order (S. A. 1), 1975 Regulation is applicable but by virtue of the notification dated 17.11.1979, the application of 1975 Regulation was never withdrawn. Then again in the counter-affidavit, it has been urged that the services of the petitioner were terminated according to 1975 Regulation on account of absconding of the petitioner from service. Then again in the counter-affidavit, it has been urged that the services of the petitioner were terminated according to 1975 Regulation on account of absconding of the petitioner from service. During the course of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent, had drawn my attention to Regulation 85 (ii) (b) of 1975 Regulations that services of an employee can be terminated without holding any disciplinary proceeding if he had absconded within the mantling of clause (b) aforesaid. Therefore, preliminary objection cannot be accepted and is accordingly overruled.'' 19. The Division Bench in Vishwa Nath Gupta-I upheld the learned Single Judge's opinion on the point, observing: ''In view of the aforesaid settled legal position it has to be examined in the facts of the present case as to whether the issuance of the notification dated 17.11.1979 whereby the Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation has been withdrawn from the purview of theUttar Pradesh CO-operative Institutional Services Board would have effect of making the provisions ofUttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Employees Services Regulation, 1975, inapplicable to the employees of the Society. This Court may record that the Hon'ble Single Judge has specifically held that notification dated 17.11.1979 only provided that the Institutional Board shall have no control qua recruitment training and disciplinary control of the employees of Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation. The notification does not provide that Regulation of 1975 would cease to apply. The aforesaid aspect of the matter stands clarified by reason of the communication of the Milk Commissioner who is also the Registrar of the Milk Co-operative Societies dated 17.9.1981 which provided that the statutory Regulations of 1975 would continue to be applicable to the employees of Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation. The Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly held that at no point of time the applicability of Regulation 1975 was withdrawn qua the employees of Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. Once it has been found that the statutory Regulations of 1975 were applicable, it would be seen that the impugned order of termination is in teeth of Regulation 85 (II) (b) of theUttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Employees Services Regulation, 1975. This Court, therefore, hold that the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge allowing the writ petition is in accordance with law.'' 20. This Court, therefore, hold that the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge allowing the writ petition is in accordance with law.'' 20. Upon Appeal by Special Leave, the Supreme Court in Vishwanath Gupta-II upheld the learned Single Judge's opinion, as affirmed by the Division Bench and observed: ''The facts are not in dispute. The question that emerges for consideration is whether the interpretation placed by the High Court of Regulation 85 (ii) (b) is correct and whether the High Court has oppositely opined that the terms and conditions enshrined in the said Regulation had not been complied to attract its applicability. To appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to reproduce the said Regulation: ''85. Disciplinary proceedings: (1) the disciplinary proceedings against an employee shall be conducted by the Inquiring Officer (referred to in clause (iv) below with the due observance of the principles of natural justice for which it shall be necessary : (ii (a) Where an employee is dismissed or removed from service on the ground of conduct which was led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) Where the employee has absconded and his whereabouts are not known to the society for more than three months; or (c) Where the employee refused or fails without sufficient cause to appear before the Inquiry Officer when specifically called upon in writing to appear; or (d) Where it is otherwise (for reasons to be recorded) not possible to communicate with him, the competent authority may award appropriate punishment without taking or continuing disciplinary proceedings disciplinary proceedings.'' On a bare reading of the said Regulation, it is quite vivid that to attract the said Clause, two conditions precedent, namely, absconsion of the employee and, second, the employer i.e. the Society should be in a position to form an opinion that whereabouts of the employee are not known to the employer for more than three months. The High Court has found that the second condition was not satisfied. The reasoning given by the High Court reads as follows: x x x x x We find that the reasons assigned by the High Court on the backdrop of the facts are absolutely sound. The conditions precedent were not satisfied and hence, the employer without holding an enquiry could not have terminated the services of the respondent. The reasoning given by the High Court reads as follows: x x x x x We find that the reasons assigned by the High Court on the backdrop of the facts are absolutely sound. The conditions precedent were not satisfied and hence, the employer without holding an enquiry could not have terminated the services of the respondent. Be it noted, it is an exceptional clause and, therefore, the conditions precedent are to be strictly construed.'' 21. A careful reading of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Vishwanath Gupta-III shows that the decision in that case did not turn on the issue of prior concurrence by the Board to the penalty imposed, but upon the point that the conditions precedent to the exercise of powers under Regulation 85 (ii) (b) were not fulfilled. 22. No doubt, an issue was raised in Vishwanath Gupta-III that a writ petition to challenge the termination of services of an employee of the PCDF was not maintainable, because it was not 'State' and by virtue of the Notification dated November 17, 1979, the PCDF was no longer under the purview of the Board, but this Court did not accept the PCDF's contention regarding the maintainability of a writ petition against them by an employee questioning the imposition of a penalty. It was opined that it is only the Board, whose jurisdiction has ceased under the Regulations of 1975 and can now be exercised by the Authority managing the concerned Society, which was earlier taken away and conferred on the Board by virtue of the Regulations of 1975. It was also held that the Notification dated November 17, 1979 has not placed the PCDF beyond the purview of the Regulations of 1975. The other provisions of the Regulations of 1975, including those in Chapter VII were, therefore, held, in the opinion of this Court, to be applicable to the PCDF. 23. The logical corollary of the holding in Vishwanath Gupta-III is that after issue of the Notification dated November 17, 1979, prior concurrence of the Board before one or the other specified major penalties were imposed on an employee of the PCDF was no longer necessary. But, that was not the ratio decidendi. 23. The logical corollary of the holding in Vishwanath Gupta-III is that after issue of the Notification dated November 17, 1979, prior concurrence of the Board before one or the other specified major penalties were imposed on an employee of the PCDF was no longer necessary. But, that was not the ratio decidendi. The Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 992 of 1997 also upheld the learned Single Judge not on the point that prior concurrence of the Board was necessary before termination of services of an employee of the PCDF, but that the Regulations of 1975 continue to be applicable notwithstanding withdrawal of jurisdiction of the Board vide Notification dated November 17, 1979. And, therefore, the termination before the Court in that case was in teeth of Regulation 85(ii)(b) of the Regulations of 1975. 24. The holding of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Vishwanath Gupta-II upholding both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench also is to the effect that the termination of the employee in the cause before the Court was in violation of Regulation 85(ii)(b) of the Regulations of 1975, which continue to apply notwithstanding the Notification dated November 17, 1979. 25. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not right in holding that the Division Bench in Vishwa Nath Gupta-I having opined that the Regulations of 1975 were applicable to the PCDF, prior concurrence of the Board had to be obtained by the PCDF before passing the impugned order of dismissal. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has misunderstood the eloquent exposition of the law in Vishwanath Gupta-III and Vishwanath Gupta-II, that is, both in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench there, which clearly lay down that in view of the Notification dated November 17, 1979, the Regulations of 1975 have not been withdrawn and continue to regulate the service conditions of employees of the PCDF, but the control and the jurisdiction of the Board no longer extends to the PCDF. It is this removal of the jurisdiction of the Board under the Regulations vis-a-vis the PCDF by the Notification dated November 17, 1979, that makes all the difference. 26. It is this removal of the jurisdiction of the Board under the Regulations vis-a-vis the PCDF by the Notification dated November 17, 1979, that makes all the difference. 26. The learned Single Judge has proceeded to opine on the premise that since the Regulations of 1975 have been held to apply to the PCDF by the learned Single Judge in Vishwanath Gupta-III and the Division Bench in Vishwanath Gupta-I, the impugned order of dismissal without compliance with Regulation 87, that is to say, without obtaining prior concurrence of the Board is bad. We are afraid that this is not at all so. 27. Upon a careful reading of the Notification dated March 4, 1972 and the subsequent Notification dated November 17, 1979, we are of opinion that it is not that the Regulations of 1975 have ceased to apply to the PCDF, but it is indubitable that the PCDF is no longer under the purview of the Board as regards recruitment, training and disciplinary control of its employees after the issue of the Notification dated November 17, 1979. Therefore, in our considered opinion, while the Regulations of 1975 would continue to apply to the PCDF, Regulation 87, which mandates prior concurrence of the Board before any of the specified major penalties, in sub-clauses (e), (f) and (g) of Clause (i) of Regulation 84 are imposed, would not be applicable to the PCDF. The PCDF would not at all be required to obtain the prior concurrence of the Board before imposing any of the specified major penalties. 28. No other point has been argued before us to support the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 29. In our opinion, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 30. This Special Appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition dismissed.