JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner was working under the United Puri Nimapara Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Puri (hereinafter to be referred to as the Bank). His order of appointment (Annexure I) dated 23rd of January, 1963 shows that the appointment was purely temporary and was terminable at any time without notice. On 12-9-1970 he was suspended from service by an order (Annexure 2) dated 12-9-1970. Some intermediate explanation was obtained from him for certain delinquencies. His services were ultimately terminated by an order (Annexure 6) dated 19-3-1971. Annexure 6 runs thus: The services of Sri Pravakar Acharya, temporary Circle Inspector, Brahmagiri Circle is hereby terminated with effect from the date of his suspensions i.e. 12-9-1970 afternoon. This writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the impugned order Annexure 6. 2. Facts are not disputed in the counter affidavit. It is, however, asserted that no writ lies against the Bank which is a private body. 3. Mr. Mohanty does not assail the order of termination which much accordingly stand. He, however, contends that the order of suspension (Annexure 22) could not have been passed for more than two months according to the conditions of service in the subsidiary rules framed by the Registrar of the Cooperative Society and that the Petitioner is entitled to his pay from 12-9-1970 to 19-3-1971 as the termination order could not be retrospectively operative. The undisputed fact is that the Order of termination has been passed without any disciplinary proceeding being taken. The order of termination is not by way of punishment. The Bank has not imposed any penalty of suspension. If a proceeding had been initiated and ultimately suspension would have been imposed as a penalty by way of punishment, then the Petitioner would not have been entitled to any pay during the period of suspension excepting the suspension allowance. In this case suspension has not been imposed as a penalty as there was no disciplinary proceeding. Consequently, the Petitioner would be entitled to his pay from 12-9-1970 to 19-3-1971 despite the order of the suspension. 4. The result, therefore, is that the order of termination (Annexure 6) would be operative and effective from 19-3-1971 and not retrospectively from 12-9-1970 and during the intervening period from 12-9-1970 to 19-3-1971 the Petitioner would be entitled to his pay. 5. Mr. 4. The result, therefore, is that the order of termination (Annexure 6) would be operative and effective from 19-3-1971 and not retrospectively from 12-9-1970 and during the intervening period from 12-9-1970 to 19-3-1971 the Petitioner would be entitled to his pay. 5. Mr. Ram, however, contends that an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable against the Bank which is entirely a private body and the subsidiary rules framed by the Registrar do not affect this position. Reliance is placed by him on Co-operative General Bank, Ltd. and Ors. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Ors. where their Lordships said that the bye laws framed by a Co-operative Bank have not the force of law. This principle may not have any application to subsidiary rules framed by the Registrar of the Co-operative Society. At any rate, we are bound by a Bench decision of this Court reported in Narayan v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Orissa and Ors. which also took into consideration some of the supreme Court decisions. We need not express a final view on this matter on this occasion. We consider this case as an appropriate case where we need not leave the Petitioner to work out an alternative remedy. 6. In the result, the writ application is allowed in part as indicated above. A writ of certiorari be issued quashing Annexure 6 to the extent as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. B.K. Ray, J, 7. I agree.