ORDER S.R. Singh, J. - These are two petitions - one filed by Jamuna Prasad and the other by Rakesh Kumar, challenging their suspension made by means of the order dated 1-2-1992 passed by the Managing Director of U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. Lucknow known as `Pradeshik Co-operative Federation (in short `PCF) which is a State level Co-operative Society within the meaning of the term as defined in Section 2(a-4) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies, Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'). 2. Petitioner Jamuna Prasad was working as District Manager PCF Mainpuri, while Rakesh Kumar, petitioner in the second petition, as its Bhandarnayak at the relevant time. They were placed under suspension by the impugned order referred to above. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these two petitions, I propose to take up both the petitions for disposal by a common order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also traversed upon the facts and circumstances on record. 4. The point, at the very outset, pressed ,by the learned counsel for the petitioners, was that the Managing Director had no jurisdiction of placing the petitioners under suspension, inasmuch as the disciplinary power, according to the learned counsel, inhered in the Committee of Management and not in the Managing Director. In the perspective of this submission, I consider it imperative to give a resume if the relevant provisions of the Act, rules and the bye-laws. 5. The Federation as said above is a State level Co-operative Society registered/deemed to be registered under the provisions of the Act. It has got its own bye-laws. According to the bye-law 2(e) of the bye-laws, `Sanchalak Mandal' means `Committee of Management' as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act. The said section of the Act defines `Committee of Management' to mean the 'Committee of Co-operative Society by whatever name called, to which the Management of the affairs of the society is entrusted under Section 29. Bye-law 43 lays down the powers and duties of the `Sanchalak Mandal'. The said bye-law, in so far as it is relevant for the purposes of the case is quoted as below. Bye-law 43 lays down the powers and duties of the `Sanchalak Mandal'. The said bye-law, in so far as it is relevant for the purposes of the case is quoted as below. " 43- lapkyd e.My ds fuEufyf[kr vf/kdkj vkSj drZO; gksxsA x x x x ( v ) vf/kfu;e] fu;eksa rFkk muds vUrxZr cus ckdjh fofu;eksa ds vuqlkj deZpkjh pquu] vkSj osru ekaxh rFkk voSrfud deZpkfj;ksa ds f'k{k.k dk izcU/k djuk o tekur ysuk o mldks fu;qfDr djuk rFkk nf.Mr djuk ;k gVkukA x x x x ( c ) vius fdUgh vf/kdkjksa vkSj drZO;ksa dks izR;sd o"kZ dk;Zdkfj.kh lfefr] mi lfefr] lapkyd rFkk lfpo dks inzku djuk] lk/kkj.krk ( d) ] ( [k) ] ( M+) ] ( <+) ] ( .k) vkSj r esa fyf[kr vf/kdkjksa ds vfrfjDr lapkyd e.My ds vU; lc vf/kdkj dk;Z dkfj.kh dks izkIr gksaxsA " 6. The Federation has framed rules known as U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. Karamchari Sewa Niyamawali, 1980' (in short the 'Sewa Niyamawali) which was approved by the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board on 4th Dec. 1980. These service rules are not referable to any provision in the Act or the rules made thereunder, but may have been framed under regulation 102 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 framed by the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board with the approval of the State Government under Section 122 of the Act. Rule 2(c) of the Sewa Niyamawali defines `appointing authority' to mean `Committee of Management' or any other authority, which has the power to make appointment under the Act or the bye-laws of the Federation. Rules 83 and 84 deal with punishment and disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the Federation. These rules, in so far as, they are relevant for the purposes of the case, may be quoted as below. Rules 83 and 84 deal with punishment and disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the Federation. These rules, in so far as, they are relevant for the purposes of the case, may be quoted as below. " 83& 'kkfLr " x x x x 4 ( d ) vkjksfir deZpkjh dks leqi;qZDr izkf/kdkjksa }kjk vijk/k dks xEHkhjrk ds vuqlkj n.M fn;k tk;sxkA izfrcU/k ;g gS fd [k.M ( 1 ) ds mi[k.M ( M+ ) ( p ) ;k ( N ) ds v/khu dks 'kkfLr vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh fd, fcuk vkjksfir ugha dh tk;sxhA ( [k ) dksbZ deZpkjh ml izkf/kdkjh ls ftlds }kjk og fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk fHkUu fdlh izkf/kdkjh /kkjk rc rd gVk;k ;k inP;qr ugha fd;k tk;sxk tc rd fd fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjhus ,sls izkf/kdkjh dk izfr fu/kk;u ,sls vU; O;fDr ;k izkf/kdkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa igys gh u dj fn;k gksA x x x x 84- vuq'kklfud dk;Zokfg;ka x x x x 5- fuyEcu %& dksbZ deZpkjh fuEufyf[kr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh vFkok bl iz;kstu ds fy, izkf/kd`r fdlh vU; vf/kdkjh }kjk fuyfEcr fd;k tk ldsxkA ( d ) tc mDr izkf/kdkjh dks ;g lek/kku gks tk;s fd izFke n`'; ekeyk ,slk gS ftlesa ifj.kke Lo:i deZpkjh dks gVk, tkus inP;qr fd, tkus ;k inkoufr fd, tkus dh lEHkkouk gS] ;k ( [k ) tc mlds vkpj.k ds lEcU/k esa rqjUr tkap djuk vk'k;fr ;k fopkj/khu gks vkSj mldk vius in ij vxzrj cuk jguk QsMjs'ku ds fgr eas vfgrdj le>k tk; vFkok ( x ) tc mlds fo:) fdlh ,sls n.Muh; vijk/k dks dksbZ f'kdk;r cqd iqfyl ds vUos"k.kk gks ftlds fy, og fxjQ~rkj fd;k gks] ;k Hkkjrh; n.M+ lafgrk] mRrj izns'k lgdkjh lfefr vf/kfu;e] 1965 ;k fdlh vU; vf/kfu;e ds v/khu fdlh vijk/k esa mlds fo:) fdlh fof/k U;k;ky; esa fopkj.k gks jgk gks] ;k fdlh n.M U;k;ky; }kjk mlds fo:) vkjksi fopfjr fd, x;s gksA izfrcU/k ;g gS fd ;fn fuyEcu lsok fu;e 82 ds [k.M 1 ds vuqlkj gksrk rks og ck/;dj gksxkA ( N ) & fuyEcu vkns'k ( d) ml izkf/kdkjh }kjk ftlus vkns'k fn;k gks] ;k " 7. Regulation 85(vi) and Rule 84 (5) of the Sewa Niyamawali are almost identically worded. Regulation 85(vi) and Rule 84 (5) of the Sewa Niyamawali are almost identically worded. Regulation 85(vi) runs as under : "85(vi) - An employee other than one referred to in clause (v) may be placed under suspension in the following circumstances by the appointing authority or any other officer authorised for the purpose- (a) When the said authority is satisfied that a prima facie case exists, which is likely to result in the removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of the employee; (b) When an enquiry into his conduct is immediately contemplated or is pending and his further continuance on his post is considered detrimental to the interest of the society; (c) When a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under police investigation for which he has been arrested or he is undergoing trial in a court of law for offence under the Indian Penal Code, U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 or any other Act or charges have been framed against him by a criminal court; Provided that suspension shall be obligatory where it is called for in terms of clause (i) of Regulation No. 83." 8. I have not been called upon by the learned counsel for the parties to advert to the questions as to inconsistency, if any, of these domestic service rules with the above statutory service Regulations. However, having examined this aspect, I am of the opinion that these rules may apply only in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Service Regulation, 1975 referred to above. 9. Having quoted the related provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws as to the powers and duties of the Committee of Management, I would now quote the related provisions as to the powers and duties of the Secretary/Managing Director of the Federation. Section 31A of the Act provides that for every Apex Society, there shall be, instead of a Secretary, a Managing Director which shall be a Government servant not below the rank of a Class I officer, nominated by the State Government and his services shall be deemed to be on deputation with the society and he shall act as its Chief Executive Officer. Duties and responsibilities to be performed by the Managing Director of an Apex Society subject to such control of the Committee of Management and the Chairman, as may be prescribed in the rules and the bye-laws of the society, are specified in sub-section (4) Section 31A. Clause (viii) of sub-section (4) being relevant for the purposes of appreciation of the points raised at the bar is quoted below. "(viii) to create, subject to provisions contained in the budget of the society, class III and Class IV posts for a period of three months and to make as appointing authority, recruitment thereto through the Board as provided in the regulations framed by the State Government in exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of Section 122;" The duties of the Secretary/Managing Director of the Federation are specified in para 48(Ka) of the bye-laws of the Federation. The said bye-law in so far as it is relevant is quoted as below. 48 ( c ) QsMjs'ku ds lfpo dks fu;qfDr vf/kfu;e] fu;eksa rFkk muds vUrxZr cus fofu;eksa ds v/khu lapkyd e.my }kjk dks tk;sxh rFkk vko';drkuqlkj la;qDr o lgk;d lfpo lapkyd e.My }kjk fu;ekuqlkj fu;qDr fd, tk ldrs gSA lfpo QsMjs'ku dk eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/kdkjh gksxkA mlds fuEu fyf[kr drZO; gksaxsA x x x x 13- lapkyd e.My }kjk iznRr vf/kdkjksa ds vUrxZr QsMjs'ku ds oSrfud rFkk voSrfud deZpkfj;ksa dks fu;qfDr djuk] 14- lapkyd e.My ds le{k fdlh ekeys ds fopkjk/khu jgus rd lHkkifr dh vuqefr ls fdlh oSrfud vf/kdkjh ;k deZpkjh dks fuyfEcr djuk] 15- lapkyd e.My ;k dk;Zdkfj.kh }kjk fd, x, vU; fdUgha vf/kdkjksa ;k drZO;ksa dk iwjk djuk] x x x x 10. A conspectus of the provisions of the Act, the Sewa Niyamawali, the Regulations and the bye-laws, referred to hereinbefore, would make it abundantly clear that so far as Committee of Management is concerned, it has got the power to make selection and recruitment/appointment of the employees of the Federation as also the power to punish or remove them as is particularly evident from bye-law 43(g), Rule 2(c) of the Sewa Niyamawali and Regulation 2(iii) of the Regulations and as provided in bye-law 48(Ka) (13), the power of appointment of paid or unpaid employees may be exercised by the Secretary provided the said power is delegated to him by the Committee of Management but so far as the power of suspension is concerned, it is vested with the Secretary as provided in clause (14) of bye-law 48(Ka). The provisions contained in clause (14) of bye law 48(Ka) amount to delegation of power of suspension vested in the Committee of Management in favour of the Secretary and there is no need of further delegation. The power of suspension is however, exercisable with the permission of the Chairman, pending consideration of any case/matter relating to a paid employee of the Federation before the Committee of Management, with the permission of the Chairman. 11. Rule 85(5) of Sewa Niyamawali as well as Regulation 85(vi) of the regulations contemplate that the Appointing Authority or any officer of the Federation specially empowered in this behalf, may place an employee of the Federation under suspension under the circumstances enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereto. As noticed above, the power of suspension vested in the `appointing authority' namely, the Committee of Management, stands delegated in favour of the Secretary/Managing Director by virtue of bye-law No. 48(Ka) (14). The bye-laws were in existence when the `Sewa Niyamawali' was framed by the federation. I do not find anything in the Sewa Niyamawali which may be held to be incongruous with bye-law 48(Ka)(14). However, under Rule 85(5) of the `Sewa Niyamawali' and Regulation 85(vi) of the regulations, the power of suspension may be delegated even in favour of any other officer of the federation, but no such delegation in favour of any other officer of the Federation was brought to my notice. The Secretary, Managing Director as noticed above, derives his power of suspension by virtue of delegation in his favour under bye law 48(Ka)(14). The Secretary, Managing Director as noticed above, derives his power of suspension by virtue of delegation in his favour under bye law 48(Ka)(14). The Secretary/Managing Director being the Principal Executive Officer of the Federation, the delegation of power of suspension in his favour under bye-law 48(Ka)(14) was but proper. It was a valid delegation of power vested in the Committee of Management, which is the Appointing Authority. I am, therefore, not prepared to accept the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Secretary/Managing Director of Federation, had no jurisdiction to place the petitioners under suspension. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents also tried to lend justification to the power of Secretary to place the officers and employees of Federation under suspension by virtue of resolution passed by the Committee of the Federation in its meeting held on 3-12-1991, whereby the Managing Director was made the Appointing Authority of all categories of officers and employees of the Federation. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the said resolution, if read with Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, would vindicate the contention that the Secretary/Managing Director being the Appointing Authority, could have the power to suspend, dismiss, remove or otherwise terminate the services of officers and employees of the Federation. The resolution was assailed on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that it was violative of Section 31A(4) (viii) of the Act. 13. In my opinion, the principle that the power to suspend is a necessary concomitant of the power to appoint as contained in Section 16 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, is not attracted in the present case, for the principle contained in the section is applicable, `unless a different intendment appears', where a power to make any appointment is conferred "by any Uttar Pradesh Act". In the instant case, the power to make appointment has been conferred upon the Managing Director by a resolution passed by the Committee of Management and not by any Uttar Pradesh Act, though conferment/delegation of power is permissible in the Act, the Sewa Niyamawali and the Regulations. The power to suspend an employee is expressly conferred upon the Managing Director vide bye-law No. 48(Ka)(14). There is no need to fall back upon Section 16 of the U.P. General Clauses Act. The power to suspend an employee is expressly conferred upon the Managing Director vide bye-law No. 48(Ka)(14). There is no need to fall back upon Section 16 of the U.P. General Clauses Act. But this would not make any difference, for I have already held that the Managing Director has the power to suspend any paid officer/employee of the Federation. However, the said power has to be exercised in the manner indicated in the bye-laws which confer the power, or not at all. Even if the source of the power is held to be the resolution dated 3- 12-1991 read with Section 16 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, the manner of its exercise would be the same as indicate in the bye-laws read with the related provisions of the Regulations and the Sewa Niyamawali laying down the grounds on which suspension may be ordered. 14. Having held that the Secretary/Managing Director had the power to place the petitioners under suspension, next question that arises for determination, is whether the power of suspension inhering in the Secretary, was exercised in the manner indicated in bye-law 48(Ka) (14) of the bye-laws. The said provision as noticed above, empowers the Secretary to place a paid officer and employee of the Federation under suspension, pending consideration of his case before the Committee of Management, with the permission approval of the Chairman. There is nothing in the impugned order to suggest that it was passed with the approval of the Chairman, nor is there anything to indicate that the Committee of Management was seized of any case relating to the petitioners, justifying their suspension on the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (c) or Rule 84(5) of the Sewa Niyamawali or clauses (a) to (c) of Regulation 85(vi) of the regulations. In my considered opinion, the order of suspension passed by the Managing Director of the Federation, can be sustained only if it is passed in the manner indicated in bye-law 48(Ka)(14) which envisages pendency of a case before the Committee of Management and permission or approval of the Chairman and on grounds indicated in Rule 48(5) of Sewa Niyamawali or Regulation 85(vi) of the Regulations referred to hereinbefore. The learned counsel for the respondents did not suggest at the bar that the order of suspension was passed with the approval/permission of the Chairman and that a case regarding petitioners was pending consideration before the Committee of Management of the Federation. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of suspension is not sustainable in law. 15. Accordingly, the petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned order dated 1-2-1992 passed by the Managing Director of U.P. Co-operative Federation is quashed.