JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - Through this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, Ram Chandra Dixit, the petitioner, challenges his dismissal order dated 21st August, 1978 from the post of Supervisor, Kshetriya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Karanpur, district Aligarh. 2. The petitioner filed the present writ petition with the allegations that he was appointed in the year 1960 as Supervisor in the U.P. Co-operative Bank, Lucknow, u p. to July, 1976 he worked as Supervisor at different places. In August 1976 he was posted at Chandra Purvi Kshetriya Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Chandrapa. district Aligarh as Secretary. He had also been given the charge of Seed Store. From Chandrapa Kshetria Sahkari Samiti he was transferred to Kshetriya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Karanpur, district Aligarh as Secretary. While he was working in the said Kshetriya Sahkari Samiti, he received an order dated 8th January, 1978 suspending him on the ground of serious irregularities in the distribution of fertilizer and fictitious Baning. The suspension order was followed by service of a charge sheet of which a reply was given to the authority concerned. The petitioner also appeared before the Enquiry Officer. Having found that the charges were made out the petitioner was dismissed from employment by the Deputy Registrar on 21st August, 1978. The order stated that after investigation of the charges and taking evidence of the department and also of the petitioner the petitioner had been found guilty of disobedience, indiscipline, embezzlement of funds and distribution of fertilizer. The petitioner thereafter, filed the present writ petition in this court on November 3, 1978. 3. The ground taken was that the petitioner was an employee of U.P. Co-operative Union Bank and as his services were governed by the U.P. Co-operative Societies. Employees Services Regulation, 1975, framed under Section 122 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), his service could be terminated only by the Committee of Management and as such, the impugned order dismissing him from service by the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, was invalid. Controverting the allegations made in the writ petition, that the petitioners services were governed by the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 the counter-affidavit stated that the Co-operative Bank had been recognised as "Federal Authority" under Section 123 of the Act and, as such, the petitioners service Regulations 1975. 4. Controverting the allegations made in the writ petition, that the petitioners services were governed by the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 the counter-affidavit stated that the Co-operative Bank had been recognised as "Federal Authority" under Section 123 of the Act and, as such, the petitioners service Regulations 1975. 4. The question is whether the U.P. Co-operative Union Bank is a Federal Authority and that the impugned order of dismissal made by the Deputy Registrar is legal. 5. The Act was passed in 1965 to consolidate and amend the law relating to Co-operative Societies in Uttar Pradesh. It provides a complete scheme for achieving the said purpose. The various provisions made in the Act deal with formation of cooperative societies, management of societies, privileges of societies, rights of the members of the cooperative societies and their liabilities etc. So give effect to the provisions of the Act, the State Government made the rules which are known as U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968. Rule 2 gives the definition of term "Apex Society". The definition includes the U.P. Cooperative Union Bank Ltd and as an Apex Society. Section 122 of the Act confers power on the State Government to constitute an authority for the recruitment, trailing and disciplinary control of employees of the Co-operative Societies. In exercise of the aforesaid powers, the State Government constituted a Board which was known as the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board in 1972. Although it was constituted from July 22, 1972 but did not frame arty regulation envisaged by the order constituting it till July 3, 1973. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 122, the Board framed the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations 1975. Which was published in U.P. Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 6th January, 1976. 6. Clause (2) (iii) of the Regulations defines the appointing authority. It lays down that appointing authority means Committee of Management or any other authority which is empowered under these Regulations or bye-laws of the Society to make appointments. Regulation 84 (iv) (b) lays down that no employee shall be removed or dismissed by an authority other than by which he was appointed unless the appointing authority has 'made prior delegation of such authority to such other person or authority in writing. Regulation 85 (vi) confers powers of suspension. 7. Regulation 84 (iv) (b) lays down that no employee shall be removed or dismissed by an authority other than by which he was appointed unless the appointing authority has 'made prior delegation of such authority to such other person or authority in writing. Regulation 85 (vi) confers powers of suspension. 7. Relying upon the provision of Section I 22 and Regulation 84 (iv) (b), counsel for the petitioner contended that since the services of the petitioner were governed by the Service Regulations framed by the Institutional Board, the petitioner could be dismissed from service only by the Committee of Management. On the aforesaid basis, the argument was that the impugned -order of termination made by the Registrar was invalid. 8. There would have been no difficulty in accepting the argument of the petitioner and in holding that the order of dismissal was invalid, had we found that the services of the petitioner were governed by the Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. The position appears to be different, Section 123 of the Act empowers the State Government for constitution or recognition of co-operative Federal Authority to supervise working of the co-operative societies In exercise of the powers under section 123 read with Rule 350 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rule as, 1968 and after consulting the Chairman of all the apex level Co-operative societies of Uttar Pradesh the Governor issued a notification on February 13, 1976 recognising the U.P. Co-operative Union Ltd. (P.C.U ) as cooperative Federal Authority to supervise the Sahkari Sangh Karya Vikraya Samitian. Clause 8 of the aforesaid notification conferred power on the Sahkari Sangh Pradhikari to frame regulations governing its business. On March 9, 1976 the Registrar of the Sahkari Samitian, U.P. issued an order that the employees in the U.P. Cooperative Union Ltd, would be absorbed in the services of Federal Authority created by notification dated 13th February, 1976. The order provided that till the regulations governing the service conditions of those absorbed in the Federal Authority had rot been framed, the service conditions were to be governed in accordance with the provisions made in this order. 9. Pursuant to the powers of para 9 of the notification dated February 13, 1976 the Federal Authority framed "The Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976". Regulation no. 9. Pursuant to the powers of para 9 of the notification dated February 13, 1976 the Federal Authority framed "The Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976". Regulation no. 4(1) lays down : - "All person who held, at the commencement of these Regulations a lien on the post of Supervisor or Kamdar in the Union irrespective of the authority under whose administrative control they may be and those to be recruited hence forth by the Authority in connection with the supervision of and assistance to a co-operative society which falls within the purview of the Authority shall be under the control of the Authority." 10. From the above regulations it would appear that all those supervisor who were working on the date of the commencement of the:e regulations were brought under the control of Federal Authority. The provisions made, thereunder, are in respect of appointment, training, probation, confirmation, termination, dismissal etc., Under Regulation 19, the Regional Deputy Registrar had been conferred the power of appointments and has, thus, been described as the Appointing Authority. Regulation 66 deals with suspension and empowers the Appointing Authority of the Chairman of the District Committee to place under suspension a staff member against whose conduct an enquiry is contemplated. The power of dismissal has also been conferred upon the Appointing Authority. From the review of these provisions, it would appear that service of a staff member of Federal Authority is governed by the Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations. 1976 The appointing authority is the Regional Deputy Registrar. He has been conferred powers to take action against the supervisor employed in the Federal Authority. Federal Authority (Business) Regulation, 1976, is self contained and applies to its employees. A Supervisor of U.P. Cooperative Union Ltd. which is a Federal Authority, can be dismissed by the Regional Deputy Registrar. It may be made clear here that the Expression "Regional Deputy Registrar" has been defined in Section 2 (iii) (b) means the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies posted in the Region. Thus, it appears that the dismissal order passed by the Deputy Registrar in the instant case is not invalid. 11. It may be made clear here that the Expression "Regional Deputy Registrar" has been defined in Section 2 (iii) (b) means the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies posted in the Region. Thus, it appears that the dismissal order passed by the Deputy Registrar in the instant case is not invalid. 11. Section 122 of the Act deals with a situation different than contemplated by Section 123, Section 122 is general in nature, It confers powers on the State Government to constitute an authority for the various purposes mentioned therein which would have control over the employees of the Co-operative Societies. Section 123 made a special provision empowering the State Government constitute or recognise one or more Co-operative Federal Authorities. The object of constituting or recognising a Federal Authority is different. For the purpose of giving effect to Section 122, the State had framed Rules 389 A whereas for the Section 123, the rule made was 390. Reading these two sections viz. 122 and 122 and the rules 389-A and 390, the inescapable conclusion appears to be that the later in question is special in Dature and would apply to Federal Authority alone the service condition of the specified category of employee working in a Federal Authority are governed by the Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations. 12. Section 123 deals with a special contingency. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a conflict between Sections 122 and 123 is not acceptable, The question of conflict could have arisen if the two previsions would have dealt with the same subject-matter. The general provisions cannot abrogate special provision. 13. The question that may now be considered is the scope of expression "subject to such conditions" used in Section 123. Section 123, as stated above provides that the State Government may constitute or recognise a Federal Authority in the manner as may be prescribed and subject to such conditions as the State Government may impose. The expression Subject to such condition" is of wide amplitude It includes conferment of power in respect of matters relating to service conditions of the employees as well. In exercise of this potter the State Government empowered the authority concerned to make regulations regarding the service conditions of the employees. These regulations are, therefore, in conformity with the power delegated by the legislature. 14. In exercise of this potter the State Government empowered the authority concerned to make regulations regarding the service conditions of the employees. These regulations are, therefore, in conformity with the power delegated by the legislature. 14. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the writ petition challenging the dismissal order. Rule 70 of the Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulation. 1976 confers a right of appeal to a staff member as against an order of dismissal. The remedy of the petitioner lies in preferring such an appeal which will be entitled to go into the various questions raised relating to the invalidity of the dismissal order. 15. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissal with costs.