JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - Being aggrieved against the impugned order of termination from the services contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition and Annex. C1 to the counter affidavit, the petitioner, who was working as Secretary of the Cooperative Societies, Eklakhi Sadhan Sahkari Samiti with effect from the year 1973, has filed the present writ petition. 2. Notice vide office endorsement No.376200 R Cadre (P) 8283 dated 13.7.82 indicates that in pursuance of the resolution dated 23.6.82 passed by District Administrative Committee, the services of the petitioner, who was earlier suspended from the post of the secretary, were terminated. The notice also mentioned that the petitioner would be entitled for three months salary in lieu of the period of notice, which he could collect from the Head quarter. 3. The aforesaid notice was issued in accordance with the Regulation 25 (b) of the U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies (Centralised Service Regulations), 1978 hereinafter mentioned as the Regulation which provides that the services of the confirmed employee i.e. member may be terminated by giving three month's notice in writing. The relevant Regulation 25 (b) is quoted below: Termination The services of a member shall be terminated by the District Committee: (a) ...... (b) By the three month's notice in writing on either side in case of a confirmed member. Explanation: (1) Notice given by a member shall be deemed proper only if he remains on duty during the period of the notice; Provided, that he may be allowed on request to avail such portion of earned leave as may be due to him which shall however, not exceed the notice period. (2) The expression 'month' used in this regulation shall be a period of thirty days commencing on the date immediately following the date on which the notice is received by the member or the District Committee, as the case may be. 4. Main thrust of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the petitioner was a confirmed employee and his services cannot be terminated even in accordance with Rule 25(b), which gives unbridled and uncanalised power in the hand of the opposite parties, to terminate the services of the confirmed employee. The petitioner also challenged the vires of Regulation 25(b) as according to him the said provision is arbitrary and is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner also challenged the vires of Regulation 25(b) as according to him the said provision is arbitrary and is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Broje Nath Ganguly and another reported in AIR 1986 SC 1571 . 5. It was averred in the counteraffidavit that the petitioner was appointed on probation and subsequently his probation was extended but as per requirement of the rules, there should be a specific order for confirmation, 6. The Petitioner has alleged that he was originally appointed as Secretary of the Cooperative Society Eklakhi Sahkari Samiti with effect from the year 1973. A centralised Cadre of Secretaries of the Sadhan Sahkari Samitis was created in the year 1976 under the rules known as U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies, Centralised Service Rule, 1976' framed under section 122 A of the Cooperative Societies Act. On the date of the promulgation of these rules the petitioner was already working as Secretary of the Sadhan Sahkari Samiti and he stood provisionally absorbed in the Centralised Cadre, thereafter the petitioner was selected for the regular absorption, he was sent for the requisite training and on the successful completion of the said training he was regularly absorbed and placed on probation for two years. Order dated 29.3.78 clearly indicates that the petitioner was appointed on probation for the period of two years. This period could be extended for six months which was never done meaning thereby that the probation period of the petitioner would be treated for two years with effect from the date he took over the charge, i.e. 30th Nov, 1990. 7. Rule27 of the aforesaid rule provide that a person recruited to the centralised services either by direct recruitment or by promotion shall be PAGE NO. 300 SCAN authority to terminate the services of a permanent and confirmed employee by issuing a notice without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the employee before passing the order of termination. 10. Regulation 25(b) confers on the authority very wide unbridled and uncanalised power to terminate the services of a confirmed employee without giving him an opportunity to show cause against the same. The said provision is equivalent to the provision which were struck down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 10. Regulation 25(b) confers on the authority very wide unbridled and uncanalised power to terminate the services of a confirmed employee without giving him an opportunity to show cause against the same. The said provision is equivalent to the provision which were struck down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Court is of the definite view that the Regulation 25(b) of the U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies 'Centralise Services' Regulation, which provides that the services of the confirmed employee i.e. member may be terminated by giving three month's notice in writing, is opposed to public policy and the same is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and the same also deserves to be struck down. The impugned order of termination of the services of the petitioner contained in Annexure 3, 4, and 5 to the writ petition, if tested, cannot stand on the scale of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The impugned orders are violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and the same cannot be sustained and also deserve to be quashed. 11. In view of what has been indicated herein above Regulation 25(b) of the U.P. Primary Agricultural, Cooperative Credit Societies, 'Centralised Service Rule, 1976, is struck down as the same is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders of termination contained in Annex. 3, 4, and 5 C1 to the counteraffidavit is issued. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits.