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. 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. The learned Counsel submitted that the lear