K. C. AGRAWAL, M. P. SHIGH, JJ. ( 1 ) AMONGST others Bijendra Singh, the petitioner, has prayed for two relief against respondent No. 2, i, e. the district Co- operative Bank Limited, Bijnore, for his reinstatement and payment of back wages with continuity of service and also for payment of suspension allowance due under the Rules and Regulations for the period 1972 onwards. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was employed as a Supervisor in the District Co-operative bank Limited, Bijnore in 1972. He was posted as Secretary by the Bank in Sarkara Uttari Kshetriya Sahkari Samiti Limited, Bijnore. ( 3 ) ON 18th August, 1972, the petitioner was suspended on account of some serious charges of embezzlement which were detected against him. The registrar, Co-operative Societies directed for payment of l/4th suspension allowance. The petitioner handed over the charge on 26th August, 1972. ( 4 ) THERE was a dispute between the petitioner and the Uttari Kshetriya sahkari Samiti about misappropriation of Rs. 34,432. 48 p. on the part of the petitioner. The liability of the petitioner to pay the amount aforesaid was referred under Section 70 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act read with rule 22s to the Deputy Registrar of Bareilly in pursuance of the order of the registrar dated 18th April, 1973. The Deputy Registrar gave an ex parts award dated 27th July, 1974 directing the petitioner to make the payment of the entire amount. This award was, however, reversed in appeal by the Co-operative tribunal, Lucknow and the case was remanded for making of a fresh award to the Deputy Registrar, Bareilly. The Deputy Registrar by his award dated 30th september, 1983 held that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 10,503. 02 which had been taken as an advance from the Co-operative Society. As directed, the, petitioner deposited the said amount within the period allowed by the Deputy registrar. ( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, a charge sheet dated 28th June, 1979 was served on the petitioner containing 17 charges. The petitioner had earlier been suspended on 18th August, 1972, as already stated above. The charge-sheet was received by the petitioner on 28-6-1979 after a period of about seven years. The petitioner submitted an explanation replying the charge-sheet by means of a registered letter dated 21st December, 1979. The petitioner had earlier been suspended on 18th August, 1972, as already stated above. The charge-sheet was received by the petitioner on 28-6-1979 after a period of about seven years. The petitioner submitted an explanation replying the charge-sheet by means of a registered letter dated 21st December, 1979. ( 6 ) IN between the period of charge sheet and subnission cf the explanation, certain other developments about non-supply of papers to the petitioner also took place but for the purpose of the present writ petition since those facts are not so material, we need not mention them. Since no final decision was being given in the petitioners case, he approached this Ccurt for the relief mentioned above. ( 7 ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the contesting respondent. ( 8 ) SHRI D. P. S. Chauhan raised a preliminary objection to the maintain ability of the present writ petition on the basis of a Full Bench decision of this court reported in Radha Charan Shama v. U. P. Co-operative Federation and others, [1982 UPLBEC page 89]. In this case the Full Bet ch held that since the co-operative Society was cot a statutory body, no writ lay. Further it was held that there was no statutory rule or regulation, the breach of which could be alleged against the Society. ( 9 ) THE submission of the respondents counsel about the maintainability of the writ petition is fully covered by the Full Bench decision. ( 10 ) THE petitioners counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench reported in parmeshwar dayal v. Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, [1982 UPLBEC 398] for arguing that where there is a breach of Business Regulation, the writ petition was maintainable. Counsel for the petitioner urged that since similar business Regulation of 1974 which applied to the present case were subject matter before the Division Bench his case was governed by the same. We are not impressed by the argument of !he petitioners counsel and are of the view that a Co-operative Society is not an estate and there is no breach of the statutory rules and regulations as held by the Full Bench. ( 11 ) BUT it does appear (o us that great injustice has been done to the petitioner by not reinstating him or passing a final order in the disciplinary proceedings. ( 11 ) BUT it does appear (o us that great injustice has been done to the petitioner by not reinstating him or passing a final order in the disciplinary proceedings. It is strange that the petitioner was suspended on August 18,1972 but no final decision in the disciplinary proceedings has been taken against or in his favour uptii now. J or this undue delay, there is no explanation in the counter affidavit. As a result, it appears to us to be appropriate for issuing a direction to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies for passing an appropriate order under Section 128 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act. ( 12 ) UNDER Section 128, the Regulation is empowered to annul a resolution of a Society or cancel order passed by an officer of a Co-operative Society in certain ceses. In the instant case, the petitioner has been suspended by means of an order. The Registrar is directed to exercise the powers conferred on him by section 128 of the Act. For this purpose, the Registrar may pass the appropriate order under Section 128 within two months of the presentation of a certified copy of this order. ( 13 ) SUBJECT to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. ( 14 ) LET a copy of this order be given to the petitioners counsel on payment of usual charges. Order accordingly. .