R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, by meant of the present petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, who was an employee of Machanical departmental Co-operrtive Bank Ltd. . North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the Bank challenges the validity of the ordet dated 14-3-1994, passed bv the Board of Directors of the Bank and communicated to him vide letter dated 25-3-1994 of the acting Secretary, Mechanical Department of the Bank. He also prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from, interfering in his functioning as senior clerk and to pay bis salary regularly. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, are are that the Bank was a Co-operative Society registered under the U P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 The Area of operation of the society was Noth Eastern Railway in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, It was thus a multi-State Co-opeiative Society within the meaning of term used in multi-state Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. The Society has got its registered bye-laws, which provide for the Constitution of the Board of Directors. The management of the society is vested in Board of Directors- Under the bye-laws the Board of Director happens to be srpointing authority of the employees of the Society. Petitionar claims that the Bank comes within the definition of the term "other authority" and "authority" used under Article 12 and 226 of the Constitution of India and thus, was amenable to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claims that the Reserve Bank of India and Central Government have full control over the management of the Bank and the provisions of the bank and the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 are also applicable to it. It has further been stated that from time to time Reserve Bank of India and Central Government have been issuing directions and orders regarding day to day functioning of the Bank. It was on 1-8-1989 petitioner was appointed as Adeshpal. (Class IV employee ). Thereafter vide order dated 22-10-1989 he was appointed as junior clerk and was confirmed on the said post on 16-8-1990. On 15-1-1994 he was posted as senior clerk, which was equivalent to the post of cashier. It was on 1-8-1989 petitioner was appointed as Adeshpal. (Class IV employee ). Thereafter vide order dated 22-10-1989 he was appointed as junior clerk and was confirmed on the said post on 16-8-1990. On 15-1-1994 he was posted as senior clerk, which was equivalent to the post of cashier. ( 3 ) IN the year 1993 Board of Directors of the Bank was elected but subsequently, a dispute with respect to the management of the Bank arose, which resulted multiple litigations and appointment of Administrator by the Registrar to look after the administration of the Bank. There were two rival groups, each of them was claiming right to manage the affairs of the bank. One Sri Udai Bhan Singh, acting secretary has been siding with the board of Directors, has been harassing those employees, who recognised the administrator appointed by the Registrar. Petitioner, since was recognising the Administrator was not being permitted even to sign the attendance register by Beting Secretary. The proceedings under Section 145/46 Cr. P C. were also initiated. Ultimately, the said proceedings were dropped, but the petitioner was not permitted to sign the attendance registrar to perform his duties. Shri. U B. Singh also resorted to physical rift and assaulted the petitioner, whereupon a F. I. R. was lodged by the petitioner. A cross F. I. R. was also lodged by Sri U. B. Singh against the petitioner with false and concocted allegations. On 24-3-1994 without following the procedure prescribed under law and without affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, be was dismissed from services, wholly arbitrarily. The order dated 24-3- 1994 has been set out in Annexure VIII to the writ petition, which is alleged to have passed by the Board of Directors. ( 4 ) PETITIONER stated that the order of dismissal, referred to above, was passed without holding any enquiry without levelling any charge and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in any manner, wholly arbitrarily and illegally on 24-3-1994. The petitioner challenges the validity of the said order in the instant petition. ( 5 ) IN reply to the facts stated in the writ petition, counter affidavit has been tiled by Shri Ram Saran Tiwari respondent No. 2, wherein the facts that the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with law. Tne order of appointment of tbe Administrator having been withdrawn. ( 5 ) IN reply to the facts stated in the writ petition, counter affidavit has been tiled by Shri Ram Saran Tiwari respondent No. 2, wherein the facts that the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with law. Tne order of appointment of tbe Administrator having been withdrawn. The administrator bad, therefore, no right to appoint the petitioner as cashier. A suit with respect to the management has been filed and the same has been decided by tbe Civil Court and the writ petition filed against the said judgment and order having been dismissed, petitioner therefore, cannot be said to be legally and lawlully appointed ana promoted to the post of cashier, or senior clerk. The writ petition as framed and bled was legally not maintainable inasmuch as tbe society does not come within the definition of the term "state" or "other authority" as used under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The criminal cases are still pending investigation and services of the petitioner were terminated in accordance with law by the Board of Directors. It was also pleaded that the order of dismissal was appeable before the Central registrar Co-operative Society and the writ petition filed by the petitioner was thus legally not maintainable, ( 6 ) I have beard learned counsel for tbe parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order of termination having been passed without following the procedure prescribed under law. Neither any charga sheet was iramed or furnished to the petitioner, nor any enquiry was conducted, nor he was afforded an opportunity of being heard or to defend mm self. The order dated 24/23 -. 3-1994 was passed against him wholly arbitrarily and contrary to tne provisions of tbe Rules, whicb cast stigma on tbe character and conduct of tbe petitioner. The said order was therefore liable to be quashed. The impugned order dated 24/25-3-l994 is quashed below: ( 7 ) FROM the aforesaid order, it is apparent that the said order casts an stigma on the conduct of the petitioner and is based on the allegation of indiscipline and criminal activity against the petitioner and was passed withe out following the procedure prescribed under Rules. No charge sheet wa ever framed, nor the same was furnished to the petitioner, nor petitioner wass afforded an opportunity of being heard or to defend himself in any form. No charge sheet wa ever framed, nor the same was furnished to the petitioner, nor petitioner wass afforded an opportunity of being heard or to defend himself in any form. The said order was thus, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the procedure proscribed under the Rules for taking disciplinary action against the employes of the Bank. The order is thus, manifestly illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has urged that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and against the order impugned in the writ petition efficacious alternative remedy under the Act before the appellate and re visional authorities are available. Therefore, I have to examine the question as to whether the Bank comes with the definition of state or its instrumentality or other authority or authority within the meaning of the terms used under Article 12 and Article 226 of the Constitution of india. ( 9 ) ARTICLE 12 and 226 (1) of the Constitution of India reads as under :"12. In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India and the government and the legislature of each States and all local and other authorities within the territory of India and under the control of the Government of India. ""226 (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within thoss territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, (for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose ). "in Alt Ahmad v. District Inspector of Schools. 1976 0 AWC 731 the Full bench of this Court held as under"committee of management of a intermediate college is not a statutory body, nevertheless, the writ petition filed against it is maintainable, if such petition is for enforcement, performance of any legal obligation or duties imposed on such committee by statute. "in Alt Ahmad v. District Inspector of Schools. 1976 0 AWC 731 the Full bench of this Court held as under"committee of management of a intermediate college is not a statutory body, nevertheless, the writ petition filed against it is maintainable, if such petition is for enforcement, performance of any legal obligation or duties imposed on such committee by statute. "section 52 of the Act provides as under :"the Registration of multi-State co-operative societies shall render it a body corporate by the name under which it is registered having perpetual succession and a common seal and with a power to hold properly entered into contract institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purposes of which is constituted. " ( 10 ) IN Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravordi, AIR 1981 SC 487 it has been held by the Supreme Court that a corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the Government, it must be held to be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 and hence subject to the same basic ojection to obey the Fundamental Rights as the government, ( 11 ) IT has further been held that :"it is immaterial for determining whether a corporation is an authority whether the corporation is created by a statute or under a statute. The test whether it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and not as to how it is created The inquiry has to be not as to how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence. " ( 12 ) IN pafa 9 of the said decision Honble Supreme Court has laid down certain test on the basis of decision in International Airport Authoritys case ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ), the said paragraph is quoted below :"the tests for determining as to when a corporation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of Government may not be called out from the judgment in the International Airport Authority case ( AIR 1990 SC 1628 ). These tests are not conclusive or clinching, but they are merely indicative indicta which have to be used with care and caution, because while stressing the necessity of a wide meaning to be placed on the expression other authorities it must be realised that it should not be stretched so far as to bring in ever autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government with the sweep of the expression. A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tamperad by a wise limitation. We may summarise the relevant tests gethered from the decision in the International Airport Authoritys case as follows : " (1) One tiling is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government it would go a long way towaeds indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government. (2) When the financial assistance of the State is no much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the character. (3) It may also be relevant factor. . . . . . whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred of state protected. (4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the Corporation the State agency of instrumentality ; (5) If the functions of the corporation of public importance they closely related to governmental functions it would be relevant factor in classifying the corporation in an instrumentality or agency of Government. (6) Specifically. If a department of government is instrumentality of a corporation. It would be a strong factor supportive of this inference of the Corporation being an instrumentality or agency of government. If on a consideration of these relevant factors it is found that the Corporatian is an instrumentality or agency of government, it would as pointed out in the International Airport Authoritys case, be an authority and thcteiore ,state within the meaning of the expression in Article 12. " ( 13 ) THE term "other authority" and "authority" as used under article 12 and 2?6 of the Constitution were considered by the Supreme court in Sri Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee VSMJ Trust v. V. R. Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607 . It has been held that :"under Article 226, write can be issued to any person or authority. It has been held that :"under Article 226, write can be issued to any person or authority. It can be issued "for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights and for any other purposes. The term authority used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant only for the purposes of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32, Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-ennforcement rights. The words any person or authority used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined cnly to statutory authorities and instrumantalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owned by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty imposed. If a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied. It may be pointed out that mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be. enforced is not imposed by statute. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment, it should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which most be easily available to reach injustice whereover it is found. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under article 226. " ( 14 ) NOW in the present case the bank is governed by the Banking regulation Act, 1949. The Central Government and the Reserve Bank of india have got deep and pervasive control over the bank. The Reserve bonk of India has got full control over the management of the bnnk. As it is evident from Section 36-A of the Banking Regulation Act it has also got control over day to day business of the bank as well as over the management of the bank. The duties and functions discharged by the bank apparently of public nature. As it is evident from Section 36-A of the Banking Regulation Act it has also got control over day to day business of the bank as well as over the management of the bank. The duties and functions discharged by the bank apparently of public nature. ( 15 ) UNDER the facts and circumstances, as stated above, the services of the petitioner were terminated and he was dismissed from services wholly arbitrarily, without following the procedure prescribed for the same on the basis of the charges mentioned in the order of dismissal. The order of dismissal dated 24-3-1994 clearly cast stigma on the conduct of the petitioner and amounts to an order of punishment, such an order could not be passed without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules and principles, of natural justice. In the event, there was material on record in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner it was obligatory upon the res non-dent to frame charge-sheet, serve the same upon the petitioner to afford him an opportunity to explain the same and to produce evidence to defend himself after disclosing the evidence which was on the record against him and thereafter, to take decision as provided under the Rules. The Bank admittedly, not having afforded an opportunity of being heard and to defend to the petitioner. The impugned order thus, has been passed in violation of the Rules and principles of natural justice, as stated above, and is liable to be quashed Respondents are also liable to be directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of he was holding on the date he was dismissed from service and to give the benefits of bank wages and other consequential benefits in the matter of service to which petitioner was legally entitled. ( 16 ) THE writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 24-3-1994 is quashed The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post he was holding on the date he was dismissed from service. He will also be entitled for back wages and other consequential benefits to which he is legally entitled. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .