JUDGMENT B. N. Lokur, J. - Petitioner Sheo Saran Kakkar was the Manager of the Fatehpur District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Fatehpur, Respondent No. 2. Certain disciplinary proceedings were commenced against him by the Administrator of the Bank who was appointed under Rule 31 (a) of the Cooperative Societies Rules after the Board of Directors was suspended. The Petitioner has alleged that he was not allowed access to inspect the relevant records of the Society and was handicapped in submitting his explanation to the charges framed against him. It is also alleged that certain irregularities were committed in the disciplinary proceedings. The services of the Petitioner were terminated by the Administrator on the 19th June, 1964. By an order dated the 11th June, 1964, an Ad hoc committee was constituted by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, to advice Administrator, but later he modified the order on the 3rd July, 1964 by conferring upon the Ad hoc committee all the powers of the Board of Directors as laid down in the bye-laws of the Society and the Administrator was to exercise the powers of the Managing Director. On a representation made by the Petitioner, against the order of termination of his service, the Ad hoc committee appointed a sub-committee to look into the matter. The sub-committee made a report to the Ad hoc committee, after considering which the Ad hoc committee revised the order of the Administrator dated the 19th June, 1964 terminating the services of the Petitioner, reinstated him and directed that he be given an opportunity to inspect the relevant records and one week's time to submit his explanation. This decision of the Ad hoc committee was considered by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Respondent No. 1, who rescinded the resolution of the Ad hoc committee and directed that it be struck off the proceedings of the Ad hoc committee without giving effect to it; in making the order, the Deputy Registrar thought that the decision of the Ad hoc committee was contrary to the interests of the Cooperative Society and he was competent to rescind the decision as the Ad hoc committee was managing the affairs of the Society on behalf of the Registrar. 2. The petitioner has, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged the legality and validity of the order of the Deputy Registrar rescinding the resolution by the Ad hoc committee reinstating him. 2. The petitioner has, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenged the legality and validity of the order of the Deputy Registrar rescinding the resolution by the Ad hoc committee reinstating him. The action of the Deputy Registrar, on the other hand, is sought to be defended, by him. 3. It is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that Rule 31 (a) of the Cooperative Societies Rules envisage the appointment of the Ad hoc committee by the Registrar to manage the affairs of the Society on his behalf and such provision necessarily implies that the Registrar has supervisory powers, in the exercise of which he can undo any action taken by the Ad hoc committee. The said Rule 31 (a) , in my opinion, merely contemplates that any action taken by the Ad hoc committee in the management of the affairs of the Society is to be regarded as the action of the Registrar himself and in that sense only such action is taken on his behalf. The effectiveness of the powers of the Ad hoc committee are in no way curtailed on the ground that the Ad hoc committee manages the affairs of the Society on behalf of the Registrar and the rule does not also reserve to the Registrar any powers to upset the decisions of the Ad hoc committee. The phrase that the Ad hoc committee conducts the affairs of the Society on his behalf merely means that whatever action is taken by the Ad hoc committee is tantamount to action by the Registrar himself. I am unable to accept the argument of the learned Standing Counsel that Rule 31 (a) confers upon the Registrar the powers to rescind the acts of the Ad hoc committee. He, however, drew my attention to Rule 175 of the Cooperative Societies Rules which enables the Registrar to disallow any resolution passed or any action decided upon. inter alia, by the Board of Directors. The rule reads : "If such resolution or action is in his opinion foreign to the objects of the resolution or against the Act and the rules and if such resolution or action, on being so disallowed, shall become void and inoperative". inter alia, by the Board of Directors. The rule reads : "If such resolution or action is in his opinion foreign to the objects of the resolution or against the Act and the rules and if such resolution or action, on being so disallowed, shall become void and inoperative". It is contended that the decision of the Ad hoc cominittee in setting aside the order of the Administrator terminating the services of the Petitioner and reinstating the Petitioner is contrary to the Rules. No specific rule, however, was pointed out which has been contravened by the decision of the Ad hoc committee. It was, however, argued that one authority cannot cancel any order passed by another authority of coordinate jurisdiction and hence the Ad hoc committee was not competent to rescind the order of the Administrator terminating the Petitioner's services. In this connection, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in M. L. Goel v. S. K. Pehalwan, 1959 A.L.J. 897. In my opinion, this decision is not helpful to impugn the decision of the Ad hoc committee. In M. L. Goel's case, which was under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, the Magistrate had directed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to reconsider the order made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer earlier under Section 3 of that Act. It was held that the District Magistrate had no power to pass the order he did and the subsequent order, which the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had made pursuant to the District Magistrate's direction was bad in law. The Division Bench, which heard the appeal, reviewed the earlier decisions and expressed, inter alia, the view that the District Magistrate and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, having con- current jurisdiction, the order passed by either of the two authorities cannot in any way be interfered with by the other authority. In the case before us, the question is not conflict between two authorities of concurrent jurisdiction, but between two authorities one of which is a successor of the other. The Administrator took a certain decision when he was controlling the affairs of the Society, but when the Ad hoc committee was entrusted with the affairs of the society in place of the Administrator. it reconsidered the decision. There is no conflict of jurisdiction between two concurrent authorities in this situation. The Administrator took a certain decision when he was controlling the affairs of the Society, but when the Ad hoc committee was entrusted with the affairs of the society in place of the Administrator. it reconsidered the decision. There is no conflict of jurisdiction between two concurrent authorities in this situation. It is always open to one Board of Directors in full charge of the management of the affairs of the Society to cancel any order or decision of its predecessor Board of Directors if found in any way to be incorrect. It was contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the Board of Directors has no such power and my attention was drawn to the fact that the Ad hoc committee was vested with the powers of the Board of Directors "as laid down in its Bye-laws" and the Bye-laws of the Society did not permit the Board of Directors to revise any action taken by its predecessor. The powers of the Board of Directors arc set out in Bye-law 57. The Bye-law provides that the responsibility of carrying on the business of the Society shall vest in the Board of Directors and illustrates in that connection certain particular powers and duties, in clause (3) of which, it has been stated that the power to appoint. suspend, remove and dismiss or otherwise punish the employees of the Society shall be exercised by the Board of Directors. It is urged that this clause (3) does not empower the Board of Directors to reinstate a dismissed employee. I am unable to accept such an argument. It would not be conducive to the proper administration of the Society if the Board of Directors is powerless to set aside the dismissal of one of its employees and to re-instate him if it considers the dismissal to be erroneous. The power to re- instate a dismissed employee is necessarily implied in the power to appoint, suspend, remove and dismiss an employee. Apart from that, the general power that the Board of Directors is wholly responsible for all the affairs of the Society also ought to be regarded as containing the power to reinstate a dismissed officer in appropriate cases. Clause (3) is illustrative and not exhaustive. I am, therefore, not satisfied that the order of reinstatement made by the Ad hoc committee is incompetent and without jurisdiction. Clause (3) is illustrative and not exhaustive. I am, therefore, not satisfied that the order of reinstatement made by the Ad hoc committee is incompetent and without jurisdiction. That being so, the Registrar would have no power under Rule 175 to set aside the decision of the Ad hoc committee. 4. The result is that Petitioner succeeds and the order of the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies U. P., Allahabad, Respondent No. 1, dated the 26th November, 1964 rescinding the decision of the resolution of the Ad hoc committee of Fatehpur District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Fatehpur, Respondent No. 2, taken and passed in its meeting held on 8th October, 1964, reinstating the Petitioner etc. and directing that the said resolution he struck off the proceedings of the said Ad hoc committee without giving effect to it is hereby quashed. A writ may accordingly be issued. I make no order as to costs. Stay order is vacated.