JUDGMENT S.N. Phukan, J.—This writ petition has come up before this Full Bench on being referred by a Division Bench by order dated 16-4-1993. The Division Bench was of the opinion that the decision in the writ petition registered as C.W.P. No 17 of 1979, CAT. Malhotra v. H.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others, 1993 (2) Sim LC 243, was not in tune with the decisions of the apex Court reported in Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarakt Trust and ethers v. V.R. Rudani and others, AIR 1989 SC 1607 ; Bijayalaxmi Tripathy end others v. The Managing Committee of Working Women’ Hostel and ethers, AIR 1992 Orissa 242 and M. Majdoor Sakha v, State of Gujarat, 1993 (1) LLJ 695. The Division Bench also referred to other decisions of the Supreme Court reported in P.J. Irani v. State of Madras and another, AIR 1961 SC 1731 ; Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle D Ward, Kanpur and another, AIR 1966 SC 81 and Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and another v. K.S. Jagannathan and another, (1986) 2 SCC 679 The entire writ petition was heard for final disposal by the Full Bench on 30-9-1994, 2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows. The writ petitioner Mr. Ajmer Singh, was working as a clerk under the Hamirpur District Cooperative Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd., respondent No.1, since 1976. He was put under suspension on 17-4-1990 by the Chairman of respondent No.1 Co-operative Society vide Annexure PA to the writ petition. It has been alleged that the Chairman had no authority to put the petitioner under suspension since his powers were withdrawn by the Board of Directors. However, the suspension was revoked by the acting Chairman on 841-1990 and it was directed that the petitioner would be entitled to get his salary from 17-4-1990 to 8-11-1990. The State Government, respondent No.2, by order dated 3-12-1990 superseded the Board of Directors and appointed an Administrator to run the co-operative society. By order dated 3-12-1990 passed by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dharamsala, respondent No.3, it was directed that till the completion of the departmental proceedings, the petitioner alongwith others would remain under/suspension. A charge-sheet was submitted on 21-41990 on the petitioner and four charges were drawn up. The memorandum of charge-sheet dated 21-4-1990 is annexed as Annexure PD. By order dated 3-12-1990 passed by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dharamsala, respondent No.3, it was directed that till the completion of the departmental proceedings, the petitioner alongwith others would remain under/suspension. A charge-sheet was submitted on 21-41990 on the petitioner and four charges were drawn up. The memorandum of charge-sheet dated 21-4-1990 is annexed as Annexure PD. A reply was also submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure PE (English translation at Annexure PE/1). An inquiry was duly conducted and the final order was passed which has been impugned in this writ petition. The said order is at Annexure PF (English translation at Annexure PF/1) to the writ petition. By the said order it was, inter alia, directed that the petitioner would be reverted to the post of a Salesman with effect from April 1990 at the initial pay and the petitioner was also directed to give a tangible security of Rs, 50,000 and a personal security of Rs, 50,000 and he would also return the misappropriated amount with interest at the rate of 18 per cent. It was finally directed that the above decision would be applicable only when its clearance is received from the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dharamsala. 3. In the writ petition, the object of the respondent No, 1 Cooperative Society has been stated in para 3 of the petition and in para 6 it has been stated that equity contribution of the State Government was to the tune of rupees 32 lakhs. We may state here that in the counter filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, it has been stated that the authorised share capital of the respondent No.1 Co-operative Society is rupees 50 lakhs out of which share held by the Government is rupees 46 lakhs and odd. 4. The petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.1 Co-operative Society is an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution and as such amenable to writ jurisdiction of this court It has also been stated that the respondent No.1 Co-operative Society also performs public duties and, therefore, this court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate writ. 5. The petitioner has prayed that the two orders, namely, the order dated 17-4-1990 filed as Annexure PA to the writ petition and the order dated 22-3-1993 filed as Annexure PF (English translation as Annexure PF/1) to the writ petition, may be quashed and set aside. 5. The petitioner has prayed that the two orders, namely, the order dated 17-4-1990 filed as Annexure PA to the writ petition and the order dated 22-3-1993 filed as Annexure PF (English translation as Annexure PF/1) to the writ petition, may be quashed and set aside. The first order was the order of suspension and the second order is the proposed punishment to be imposed on the writ petitioner. 6. In the counter filed on behalf of the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, respondent No, 3, it has been averred that the present petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner has a right of appeal under the relevant rules. According to the respondents the entire activities of respondent No.1 Co-operative Society are managed by the Board of Directors and supervised by the department of co-operation as per the provisions contained in the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. It is denied that the respondent No.1 Co-operative Society is an instrumentality, or an agency of the Government and, therefore, is not an authority for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution and is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court. It is also denied that the respondent No.1 Co-operative Society is performing the public duties. According to the respondents, respondent No.1 Co-operative Society does not act as an agent of the Government and the society is managed by the Directors/Managing Committee as per provisions of the relevant Act and the rules and bye-laws framed thereunder. 7. A separate counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 Co-operative Society and it has been averred that the proposed penalty was based on the inquiry report as it was proved that the petitioner committed serious irregularities and misappropriation of funds of the co-operative society According to the respondent No.1 the impugned order dated 22-3-1993 has been passed taking a lenient view of the matter., It has been averred that the impugned order dated 22-3-1993 was merely a show-cause and the petitioner was given proper opportunity to put forward, his case and if he has got further grievance he could prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority. Relying on the decision of C.K. Malhotra v. H.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd., 1993 (2) Sim LC 243, it has been urged that the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard Mr. Relying on the decision of C.K. Malhotra v. H.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd., 1993 (2) Sim LC 243, it has been urged that the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. M.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 9. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has made three alternative arguments regarding maintainability of the present writ petition and in other words, where an appropriate writ can be issued by this court. Firstly, the learned Counsel has urged that in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in various decisions9 the respondent No.1 Co-operative Society is an authority inasmuch as six tests laid down in determining this question by the apex Court in Ajay Hasia etc, v, Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, AIR 1981 SC 487, have been fulfilled. In this connection, learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the objects of the Cooperative Society and also the share capital contribution of the State Government, The second contention of the learned Counsel is that the respondent No.1 Co-operative Society performs public duties and in view of the various decisions of the apex Court, the Co-operative Society is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court. Lastly learned Counsel has urged that in view of the change in the management of the respondent No.1 Co-operative Society inasmuch as the Managing Committee has been superseded by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under section 37 of the H. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, and appointing an Administrator, both the Registrar and the Administrator, the authority under the Act, are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court. 10. Both the learned Counsel for the respondents have submitted that respondent No.1 Co-operative Society is neither an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution nor it discharges public duties and, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Regarding the last point urged by the learned Counsel, Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents have submitted that merely because the Co-operative Society has been superseded and an Administrator has been appointed, it will not change the character of the co-operative society. 11. Regarding the last point urged by the learned Counsel, Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents have submitted that merely because the Co-operative Society has been superseded and an Administrator has been appointed, it will not change the character of the co-operative society. 11. It is settled law that a public servant while discharging sovereign duty of the State or any function under any law, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore, as respondent No.1 Co-operative Society has been superseded by the Registrar and an Administrator has been appointed, this court can issue an appropriate writ both on the Registrar as well as the Administrator, 12. We may also refer to the decision of the apex Court in Tika Ram v. Mundikota Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others, (1984) 4 SCC 219, In that case the appellant was the Headmaster of a private school and he was reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher by an order passed by the Management. An appeal was filed before the Deputy Director of Education, who allowed it Subsequently, the Management filed a review petition before the Director of Education, which was allowed. On these facts, the apex Court held that an officer of the Government is always amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court and since the writ petition was directed against an order passed by the Director of Education, the appellant of that case was entitled to maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution In the case in hand also the impugned order was passed by the Administrator appointed by the Registrar under the provisions of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act and, therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable. 13. In view of the above legal position, we hold that the present writ petition is maintainable and this court can issue appropriate writ. We, therefore, need not consider as to whether respondent No. 1 Co-operative Society is an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution or whether the said authority is discharging public duties in the case in hand. 14. We may state here that in C.K. Malhotra (supra), this aspect of the matter was not considered as there was no such occasion and, therefore, the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the above case need not detain us for deciding the present dispute. 15. 14. We may state here that in C.K. Malhotra (supra), this aspect of the matter was not considered as there was no such occasion and, therefore, the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the above case need not detain us for deciding the present dispute. 15. Now the question is whether the proposed punishment issued by the Administrator of the respondent No.1 Co-operative Society by office order dated 22-3-1993 vide Annexure PF (English translation at Annexure PF/1) is in accordance with law. By the said order it is proposed to revert the petitioner to the post of a Salesman by way of punishment. It is admitted that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner in the respondent No. 1 Co-operative Society was as a clerk and that the post of a Salesman is lower in rank than the post of a clerk. In other words, it is proposed to revert the writ petitioner to a post which was below the rank of the post to which he was initially appointed. 16. A similar question came up for consideration by the apex Court in Nyadar Singh v. Union of India and others, (1988) 4 SCC 170. In that case the apex Court considered the provisions of sub-rule (vi) of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, The court considered with reference to the above rule as to whether a disciplinary authority can impose the penalty of reduction on Government servant, recruited directly to a particular post, to a post lower than that to which he was so recruited ; and if such a reduction is permissible, whether the reduction could only be to a post from which under the relevant recruitment rules promotion is to the one to which the Government servant was directly recruited. 17. The apex Court considered various decisions of different High Courts and held that the penalty of reduction in rank of a Government servant initially recruited to a higher time scale, grade, service or post to a lower time scale, grade, service or post virtually amounts to his removal front the higher post and the substitution of his recruitment to a lower post, affecting the policy of recruitment itself. 18. 18. Referring to the relevant rules, the apex Court was of the opinion that while imposing penalty of reduction in rank in a disciplinary proceeding, a civil servant cannot be reduced to a rank lower than that to which he was initially appointed. 19. In this connection, the apex Court quoted with approval the relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India, (1979) 3 SLR 509, and the said paragraph runs as follows : "Acceptance of the contentions urged for the respondents would lead to incongruous and absurd results. To illustrate, could a doctor be reduced in rank to the post of a compounder, or an engineer to the post of a fitter, or a teacher in a High School to the post of a peon, or a scientific officer to the post of a ministerial officer, in the absence of any provision in the rules for the consideration of the case of the civil servant concerned, for promotion from the latter category to the former category ? It appears to me that on a fair and proper construction of Rule 11 (vi) of the Rules, the condition precedent for the exercise of power under that rule by way of imposing penalty of reduction in rank to a lower post is, that the higher post from which the concerned civil servant is sought to be reduced must be a promotional post in relation to the lower post to which he is sought to be reduced." 20. In sum, the law laid down by the apex Court is clear that while imposing the punishment of reduction in rank a person cannot be reduced to a rank lower than that to the post to which he was initially recruited. If the employee was promoted from a particular grade to a higher grade, he can, of course, be reduced in rank to a lower post from which he was so promoted. 21. If the employee was promoted from a particular grade to a higher grade, he can, of course, be reduced in rank to a lower post from which he was so promoted. 21. Rule 11 (vi) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 runs as follows : "11, The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely : (i) x x x x (ii) xxx x (iii) x x x x (iv) x x x x (v) x x x x (vi) reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding conditions of the restoration to that grade, or post or service from which the Government servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that pay, grade, past or service;" In the case in hand, the relevant service rules, which were made available to us at the time of hearing, provide for the following penalties vide Rule 23 of the service rules of the employees of the respondent No.1 Cooperative Society, The relevant portion of the said rule is quoted below :— "23. Nature of penalty. —The following penalty may, for good and sufficient reasons be imposed on the Federation employees, namely : (i) x x x x (ii) x x x x (iii) x x x x (iv) Reduction to a lower service, grade or post." From the rule quoted above, we are of the opinion that both the rules are similar and, therefore, the law laid down by the apex Court would also be applicable to the case in hand. 22. As the Administrator of the respondent No.1 Co-operative Society has proposed by the impugned order dated 22-3-1993 vide Annexure PF (English translation at Annexure PF/1) to reduce the petitioner by proposing to appoint him as a salesman, this order is illegal and violative of the law. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed, which we hereby do. 23. A statement has been made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry report was not made available to the petitioner, thereby depriving him to make an effective representation. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed, which we hereby do. 23. A statement has been made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry report was not made available to the petitioner, thereby depriving him to make an effective representation. It is not disputed that the inquiry report was made available to the writ petitioner on 15-5-1993, that is, after passing of the impugned order dated 22-3-1993. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner is entitle end to file his reply to the inquiry report, 24. For the reasons stated above, we quash the impugned order dated 22-3-1993 passed by the Administrator of the respondent No.1 Cooperative Society vide Annexure PF (English translation at Annexure PF/1) to the writ petition and direct that the writ petitioner shall file a representation with reference to the inquiry report within fifteen days from today. Thereafter the Administrator of the respondent No.1 Co-operative Society shall pass appropriate orders and submit it to the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, Dharamsala for consideration. We make it clear that while passing the order by the Administrator, he shall duly consider the representation filed by the writ petitioner and also bear in mind the law that the penalty shall not be disproportionate to the charge proved, in view of the settled law on this point. Costs on the parties. Order accordingly. -