JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. - These writ petitions were listed before us for admission but have been heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the opposite-parties, Sri K.S. Bajpai. As only legal issues are involved, no counter-affidavit is required for disposal of these petitions. 2. Two questions have been raised before us in these petitions, namely, firstly, that the Chairman of the Administrative Committee has no power of suspension, and, secondly, that the charge on which the suspension orders have been passed is illegal. All the petitioners are Secretaries of Co-operative Societies. They belong to the centralised cadre and are governed by the U.P. Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies (Centralised Service) Rules, 1967. 3. Rule 13(3) of these rules as amended on 18-6-1981 empowers the Chairman to suspend a member of the service namely, the Secretary of a Committee. Earlier, the power vested in the Chairman was that he could suspend a Secretary only with the prior concurrence of the Registrar. The amendment has, however, deleted the requirement of prior concurrence. On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that the power delegated to the Chairman was uncanalised and arbitrary and as such is was hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. We are, Prima facie, not satisfied with this contention inasmuch as the very nature of the power implies that the power would be exercised on well-recognised considerations which govern the suspension of a public servant either during the pendency or contempt at on of an enquiry or during the pendency of a criminal investigation or prosecution. As such the power cannot be said to be uncanalised. Of course, an unreasonable exercise of the power would render the order subject to judicial review on the usual considerations 4. The other contention does, however, have force. The only charge on which the suspension order has been passed is that these petitioners were guilty of having dealing on behalf of the society with private parties for purchase of Neem Khali. Such purchase was in violation of Rule 200 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules This Rule however, perm ts business dealings with private parties other than the members of the society provided such business dealings are allowed under the bye-laws of the society. It has been pointed out that under the bye-laws of these societies purchase of articles required for agriculturists m connection with agricultural operations is permissible. It has been pointed out that under the bye-laws of these societies purchase of articles required for agriculturists m connection with agricultural operations is permissible. As such the purchase of Neem Khali manure cannot be said to be violative of Rule 200. Learned counsel for the opposite-parties Sri K.S. Bajpai has, however, contended that it was not merely violation of Rule 200 that has led to the suspension of these petitioners but the irregularities committed by them in connexion with the said purchases A perusal of the suspension orders, however, shows that the only irregularity mentioned in the suspension orders is that the purchases were made with private parties other than the members of the society and that such purchase was in violation of Rule 200. If there be any other irregularities, it is always open to the competent authority to consider the matter separately afresh in accordance with law. 5. In view of the fact that the only charge which is mentioned in the suspension orders cannot be legally sustained, the suspension orders also fall to the ground. 6. In the result, these petitions are allowed and the impugned suspension orders are hereby quashed without any orders as to costs.