JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raja, J. - The fate of this writ petition hinges on the reply to the question as to whether the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. Lucknow can appoint himself by name as Administrator of a Co-operative Society. 2. Section 29 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter called as the Act) reads as under : - "29. Committee of management. - (1) The management of every Co-operative Society shall vest in i a committee of management constituted in accordance with this Act, the rules and the bye-laws, which shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed by this Act, the rules and the bye-laws. (2) The term of the elected members of the committee of management shall be such as may be provided in the rules of the bye-laws of the society. (2) It shall be the duty of the Committee of Management to take steps before the expiry of its term for election of members of the Committee of Management as provided in Section 32 at an annual general meeting, and the members so elected shall replace the members whose term expires under sub-section (2) : "Provided that the State Government may, by notification direct that in respect of such class of Co-operative Societies as may be specified. the superintendence, direction, control and conduct of elections of the members and Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee of management shall vest in the Registrar and such election may be held otherwise than in any meeting, not with standing anything contained in clause (b) of Section 32." 4(a) Where, for any reason whatsoever, the election of the elected members of the Committee of management has not taken place or could not take place before the expiry of the term of elected members, the Committee of Management shall, not with standing anything to the contrary in this Act or the rules, or the bye-laws of the Society, cease to exist on the expiry of such term. (b) On or as soon as may be after the expiry of such term, the Registrar shall appoint an Administrator or a Committee of Administrator (hereinafter, in this section, referred to as the Committee') for the management of the affairs of the society until the reconstitution of the Committee of Management in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the society, and the Registrar shall have *he power to change the Administrator or, as the case may be, any member of the Committee or to appoint a Committee in place of an Administrator or vice verse, from time to time : Provided that any Administrator appointed under sub-section (4), as it stood prior to the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1983, shall be deemed to have been duly appointed and no action taken or power exercised or function performed by him shall be deemed to be invalid or shall be celled in question in any Court on the ground of any defect in his appointment as such or on the ground that the Committee of Management was not reconstituted within time or the term of his office was not duly extended. (c) Where a committee is appointed under Clause (b) it shall consist of a Chairman and such other members not exceeding eight as may be nominated by the Registrar out of Which at least two shall be Government servants. (d) The procedure for summoning and holding of meetings of the Committee, the time and place of holding such meetings, the conduct of business at such meetings and the number of members necessary to form quorum thereof shall be such as may be prescribed. (e) So long as no Administrator or, as the case may be, the Committee is appointed under Clause (b), the Secretary or the Managing Director, as the case may be, of the society shall be in charge only of the current duties of the Committee of Management. Explanation. - Where results of the election of the members of the Committee of Management have not [been or could not be declared, for any reason whatsoever, before the expiry of the term of the elected members of the outgoing Committee of Management,'it shall be deemed that the election of the elected members of tho Committee of Management has not taken place within the meaning of this sub-section. (5) The Administrator or the Committee appointed under sub-section 0) shall, subject to any direction which the Registrar may, from ti .ne to time give, have the power to perform all or any of the functions of the Committee of Management or of any officer of the society and shall be deemed for all purposes under this Act, the rules and the bye laws of the society to be the Committee of Management and the Chairman of such Committee shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Chairman of the Committee of Management. (6) The Administrator or the Committee, as the case may be appointed under sub-section (4) shall, as soon as may be, but not later than the expiry of one year from the date of appointment arrange for the reconstitution of the Committee of Management in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the society to take over the management of the society from the Administrator or the Committee, as the case may be ; Provided that an Administrator, referred to in the proviso to Clause (b) of sub-section (4), shall arrange for reconstitution of the Committee of management within one year of his initial appointment or up (December 3i, 1986) whichever be later : Provided further that where an Administrator is replaced by a Committee or a Committee by an Administrator as provided in Clause (b) of sub-section (4). the period of one year shall count from the date the Administrator or the Committee, as the case may be, was originally appointed : Provided also that the provisions of the proviso to sub-Section (3) of this section shall apply in respect of reconstitution of the Committee of Management under this sub-section. Explanation. - not with standing that the process of election may have commenced before the appointment of Administrator or the Committee under sub-section (4) a fresh process of election shall commence after such appointment." 3. Before dealing with the question, the factual matrix as set out in the writ petition, needs to be elucidated in brief. 4. Explanation. - not with standing that the process of election may have commenced before the appointment of Administrator or the Committee under sub-section (4) a fresh process of election shall commence after such appointment." 3. Before dealing with the question, the factual matrix as set out in the writ petition, needs to be elucidated in brief. 4. The petitioner who was working as Branch Manager of Hasanpur branch of U.P. Rajya Sahkari Krishi Evam Gramya Vikas Ltd., 10, Mai Avenue, U.P. Lucknow was suspended by the Managing Director, U. P. Rajya Sahkari Krishi Evam Gramya Vikas Bank Ltd , 10, Mai Avenue, U.P., Lucknow on 30-10-1991 under the provisions of regulation 83 (I) read with regulation 85 (IV) (o) of U. P. Co-operative Society Employees' Service Regulations, 1975, on the basis of a First Information Report lodged at police station Hasanpur, Moradabad is Crime No. 345/91 under Section 7/13 (i) read with Section 13 (I) of Prevention of Corruption Act. the allegation contained in the First Information Report, in brief, are that the petitioner being Branch Manager of U. P Rajya Sahkari Krishi Evam Gramya Vikas Bank Ltd., i.O, Mai Avenue, U.P., Lucknow, at Hasanpur, district Moradabad alleged to have demanded and received a sum of Rs. 600/- as sum of Rs 600/-as alleged gratification in discharge of his official duties. Currency notes passed over by way of bribe, were later on recovered from his custody by the party which trapped him. The petitioner was produced before the learned Special Judge/Session Judge, Moradabad on the next dated on 25-10-1991 and was released on bail. 5. The main ground upon which the impugned order of sub-Derision has been assailed is that in accordance with para 2 (111) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 the Appointing Authority' of the petitioner is the Committee of Management of the Bank and in the event of supersession of the Committee of Management as contemplated under Section 29 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, ;96S, the powers of the Committee of Management are to be exercised by tho Administrator of the bank. That being so, the impugned order passed by the opposite party No 3 who is not the appointing authority of the petitioner is wholly without Jurisdiction. That being so, the impugned order passed by the opposite party No 3 who is not the appointing authority of the petitioner is wholly without Jurisdiction. It was further urged that as contemplated in para 85 (IV* of the regulations, the Managing Director, U. P. Rajya Sahkari Krishi Evam Gramya Vikas Bank Ltd., 10, Mai Avenue, U.P., Lucknow who was not the "Appointing Authority" and was never authorised to make an appointment of the Enquiry Officer, was not legally competent to direct for conducting . n enquiry against the petitioner, and hence the entire enquiry proceedings including the appointment of the Enquiry Officer is without jurisdiction. 6. It was next urged that as Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Lucknow cannot appoint himself as Administrator, he cannot assume the role of the Appointing Authority' Which according to the bye-law is the Committee of Management, and in view of the aforesaid circumstances, any delegation or authorisation made by the Administrator in favour of Managing Director U.P. Rajya Snhakari Krishi Evam Gramya Vikas Bank Ltd., 10, Mai Avenue U.P., Lucknow would be honest. 7. Para 2 (III) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 provides that "App anting Authority" means Committee of Management or any other authority which is empowered under these regulations or the bye-laws of the Society concerned to make appointment 8. Para 85 (IV) to para 83 (VI) of the regulations reads as under "85 (IV) The enquiring officer shall be appointed by the appointing authority or by an officer of the society authorised for the purpose by the appointing authority." 9. The U.P. Rajya Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramya Vikas Ltd., 10, Mai Avenue, U.P. Lucknow has its registered bye-laws and the bye-laws also contemplates that the Committee of Management of the said bank shall be 1 he appointing authority in regard to its employees including the Branch Manager. 10. The U.P. Rajya Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramya Vikas Ltd., 10, Mai Avenue, U.P. Lucknow has its registered bye-laws and the bye-laws also contemplates that the Committee of Management of the said bank shall be 1 he appointing authority in regard to its employees including the Branch Manager. 10. On be half of the respondents, it was urged that the term "any other officer authorised for the purpose" occurring in Clause 6 (VI) of service regulations, 1985 means any officer specifically authorised by the appointing authority for placing under suspension has been mis-interpreted by the petitioner A perusal of Annexure No. B-2 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties 3 and 4 would indicate that the then Administrator of opposite party No. 3 bad delegated 12 specific powers including the power of suspension of the employees of opposite party No. 3 out of 22 specific powers of the Board of Director as contained in bye-laws of opposite party No. 3 to the opposite party No. 4 by virtue of the post of Managing Director of opposite party No. 3 and not by name. It is not necessary for every subsequent Administrator or Committee to relegate any of the specific powers to opposite party No. 4 after each and every change of the Administrator or Committee or Managing Director of opposite party No. 3. the powers delegated to opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 have neither been amended nor withdrawn by any Administrator so far Thus, delegation of powers by the Administrator to opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 vide Annexure B-2 to the counter-affidavit is wholly within jurisdiction legally and valid. 11. A perusal of the resolution dated 17-2-1990 passed by the Administrator would indicate that the power of suspension has been delegated to the Managing Director Rajva Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramya Vikas Bank Ltd , 10. Mai Avenue, U.P., Luckow. In view of the fact that Committee of Management of opposite party No. 3 ceased to exist and the power of Committee of Management had been vested to the Administrator, the Administrator became the appointing authority and be could certainly delegate bis authority to opposite party No. 4 I. e. Managing Director U.P. Rajva Sahkari Krishi Evam Gramya Vikas Bank Ltd., 10, Mai Avenue, U.P., Lucknow. 12. 12. Now the only question which remains to be considered is as to whether the Registrar, U.P. Co-operative Societies can appoint himself as the Administrator', by name, of any Co-operative Society. If the answer is in negative, then neither he can enjoy any of the powers, vested in the Committee of Management nor he can be deemed to be an appointing authority. His entire action which he had undertaken Administrator i.e. delegating his authority to the Managing Director of the Bank opposite party No. 4, and the action of opposite party No. 4 in placing the petitioner under suspension, appointing an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner as well as the entire enquiry proceedings would stand vitiated. 13. It was urged that from the language of Clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 29, it is apparent that the Registrar has been vested with a power to appoint an Administrator or Committee of Administrator or change an Administrator or any member of the committee or to appoint a committee in place of and Administrator or vice verse, from time to time, but the said provision did not vest any authority to him to appoint himself. 14. More or less, similar question cropped up in the case of Kashi Nath Misra v. Chancellor, University of Allahabad and others, reported in AIR 1967 Allahabad 101. In the said case, the petitioner challenged the order of the Chancellor dated 26-2-1965 appointing under Section 11 (1) of the Allahabad University Act, respondent No. 2 Sri R. K. Nehru as Vice-Chancellor of the Allahabad University, on various grounds. Main ground of challenge was that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted because Sri M.C. Desai, the then Chief Justice could not nominate himself as a Member of the Selection Committee. Tho relevant portion of Section 11 of the Allahabad University Act Which dealt with the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor reads as under "11(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time officer of the University and shall be appointed by the Chancellor from amongst the persons whose names are submitted to him by the Committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4). (2) The Vice-Chancellor shall, except as otherwise provided, hold office for a period of three years but may relinquish office by resignation in writing addressed to the Chancellor. (2) The Vice-Chancellor shall, except as otherwise provided, hold office for a period of three years but may relinquish office by resignation in writing addressed to the Chancellor. The resignation shall ordinarily be delivered to the Chancellor sixty days' prior to the date on which the Vice-Chancellor wishes to be relieved. (3) Subject to tho provisions of sub-section (2), the emoluments and other conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor shall be such as are, or may be, prescribed by Statutes. (4) (i). The Committee referred to in sub section (1) shall consist of three persons, namely - (a) One person, not being a person who is connected with the University, a College, an Associated College a Constituent College or a Hostel, to be elected by the Executive Council : and (b) another person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court, of Judicature at Allahabad to be nominated by the Chief Justice of that High Court: 15. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Sabai (as he then was) speaking on behalf of the Bench indicated in para 14 (e) - "(e) Normally the word nomination' is used in the sense of not - appointing oneself, but of nominating another. We would have to strain the language of clause (b) of Section U (4) (i) of the Act and to travel outside its language in the realm of other provisions in other Acts as give to the expression "a Judge of the High Court'' the meaning that it includes "the Chief Justice", The Legislature could have very directly provided for the Chief Justice nominating himself as it has done in the cate of Chairman, Public Service Commission, in Section 14 (1) (iii) of the Act, but since it has not done so and in view of the fact that the normal connotation of the word `nominate' does not extend to appointing oneself, it appears to us on this ground also that in the ex pension a Judge of the High Court* the `Chief Justice of the High Court' is not included." 16. After taking assistance from the similar provisions of various other Acts, the Court observed : "For the reasons mentioned above, we are satisfied that the Chief Justice could not nominate himself in the Selection Committee." 17. After taking assistance from the similar provisions of various other Acts, the Court observed : "For the reasons mentioned above, we are satisfied that the Chief Justice could not nominate himself in the Selection Committee." 17. In the instant case, the words "Registrar shall appoint an Administrator or Committee of Administrator" or, "the Registrar shall have the power to change the Administrator or as the case may be, any Member of the Committee or to appoint a Committee in place of the Administrator or vice versa from time to time" indicate that the legislature intended to vest the Registrar a power to appoint `another person' as Administrator. If the legislature would have intended to vest a power to Registrar, to appoint himself by name, as Administrator the legislature could have very directly provided for the Registrar to appoint himself as the Administrator of a Cooperative Society. 18. Section 35 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, vests the Registrar certain powers to super seed or suspend any Committee of Management of a Co-operative Society. Sub-section (3) of Section 35 provides that where the Registrar has superseded the Committee of Management under sub-section (1), he may appoint in its place for a period not exceeding one year to be specified in the year of supersession, - (a) a new Committee consisting of one or more members of the society, or (b) an Administrator or Administrators who need not necessarily be members of the society. Here also word "appoint" has been used in the sense of not appointing himself but of nominating another. The intention of the legislature to appoint another person as Administrator is also evident from a perusal of Section 70 of the Act where the disputes may be referred to arbitration to the Registrar for action in accordance with the provisions 01 the Co-operative Societies Act and the rules. Section 71 provides that on receipt of a reference under Section 10, the Registrar may, subject to the provisions of the rules, if any, (a) decide the dispute himself, or (b) refer it for decision to an arbitrator appointed by him, or (c) refer it, if the parties to request in waiting, for decision to a board of arbitrators consisting of the three persons to be appointed in the prescribed manner. If the legislature would have intended to vest with the Registrar any power to appoint himself as Administrator, the legislature would have made agreement for reference of dispute to any other authority instead of Registrar because no person can become a Judge of his own cause 19. This Court is of the view that Registrar is not possessed of any power under the Act to appoint himself as Administrator of the co-operative Society and hence neither he can assume the role of the appointing authority nor his action delegating the power of appointing authority to Managing Director, U.P. Rajya Sahkari Krishi Evam Gramya Vikas Bank Ltd. 10, Mai Avenue, U.P. Lucknow to suspend the petitioner, appoint an Enquiry Officer and hold an enquiry against the petitioner can be sustained. 20. In view of what has been indicated here in above this writ petition succeeds. 21. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30-10-1991 passed by the Managing Director, U.P. Rajya Sahkari Krishi Evam Gramya Vikaa Bank Ltd , 10, Mai Avenue, U.P., Lucknow, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition in issued. A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner as Branch Manager of Hasanpur branch to U.P. Rajya Sahkari Krishi Evam Gramya Vikas Bank Ltd., 10, Mai Avenue, U.P., Lucknow is issued. However, it will be open for the opposite parties to proceed in accordance with law.