JUDGMENT : D.P.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Sri Prabhu Kant holding the brief of Sri H.C. Saxena, counsel for the Petitioner. 2. By means of this petition the Petitioner has challenged the order of his suspension dated 22-10-91 which is annexed to the petition as Annexure I passed by the Secretary Administrative District Committee, Firozabad. 3. The submissions of the Learned Counsel for Petitioner are three folds. 4. He has submitted that he is associated to the political party of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav and because of his association he has been victimised by means of the impugned suspension order, which according to him, is malafide and ill motivated. In this connection, he invited the attention of the court towards the two letters, one by Sri Jai Dev Singh, Yadav, a sitting M.L.A. addressed to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Firozabad and other by Surendra Singh Yadav, Block Development, Eka, addressed to the Asstt. Registrar of Cooperative Society, Firozabad dated 3-9-91. He submitted that both these letters contain the allegations that the Petitioner kept himself involved in the election publicity of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav. 5. Firstly the Petitioner has not alleged malafide against any individual. His submission is that the malafide is against the political party. This submission has got no substance. The order passed by the District Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Firozabad against the Petitioner is not malafide as alleged and apart from all this he has not been impleaded as party by name. 6. Apart from this the services of the Petitioner are governed by the U.P. Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society (Centralised Services) Regulations 1978, Rule 41, which is as extracted below: No member shall take part in or association himself with any political demonstration nor shall he canvass or otherwise is using his influence in any political election or election to the Committee of Management of the Society or any other Co-operative institution, other than Co-operative Society of which he is a member, relates to the member of the Centralised Services. The Petitioner is one of the member of the Centralised Service and not to take part in a association or in any political demonstration not to canvass or otherwise use influence in any political election. 7. Learned Counsel for Petitioner himself has submitted that he associated in the election campaign of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav. The Petitioner is one of the member of the Centralised Service and not to take part in a association or in any political demonstration not to canvass or otherwise use influence in any political election. 7. Learned Counsel for Petitioner himself has submitted that he associated in the election campaign of Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav. This, conduct of the Petitioner is infringed by Regulation 49 (Supra) and the Petitioner can not be allowed to take advantage of his own misconduct. 8. The second submission as advanced is that the suspension order contains no reason. The suspension order has been passed under Sub-clause (f) of Rule 59 of the aforesaid Regulation and the reasons in the suspension order are not to be spelled out. It is only the satisfaction of the concerned authority. 9. The last submission is that no explanation was called from the Petitioner before passing the suspension order. Under the Regulations no explanation at the time of suspension is required. The explanation would be called for when final action is taken by means of a charge sheet. 10. In the circumstance, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension. 11. However, the Petitioner may have the recourse to the provision of Sub-clause 10 of the Rule 59(f) of the Regulations for revocation of the suspension order is he makes out a case for revocation, either before the authority who has passed the impugned order before the District Committee. 12. With the above observations the petition is dismissed in limine.