ORDER D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The order in this petition shall also decide the connected writ petitions Nos. 3392 of 1997 (Harishankar Kuskwaha and another vs. Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank) and 3407 of 1997 (Kamal Narayan Singh and 22 others vs. Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank and ors). 2. Petitioner Shivraj Singh in W.P. No. 3410/97 assails termination of his services as senior Branch Manager of Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Bank Maryadit, Sidhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank' for short). The two Petitioners in W.P. No. 3392/97 assail their termination of services as Branch Manager and Clerk respectively in the bank. In W.P. No. 3407/97, 23 employees of the bank serving on different posts i.e. Supervisors, Clerks, Peons and Choukidars have assailed their terminations from the services of the bank. 3. The factual back-ground resulting into mass termination of such large number of employees of different ranks of the bank brings on surface the internal feuds due to which the functioning of co-operative societies is hindered and democratic processes which they are expected to promote are completely frustrated. 4. The abovementioned bank at Sidhi is a co-operative society registered under and governed by the provisions of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the rules framed thereunder as also by the bye-laws of the society. In accordance with the bye- laws of the society, die supreme administrative body of the bank is the Board of Managing Directors which is headed by an elected Chairman and two Vice Chairmen of which, as per bye-law 29(3), one should be occupied by a woman candidate. The sleeted Chairman of the Bank Shri Rajbali Singh on his appointment as Chairman to another co-operative bank resigned from the office of the present bank on 23-6 1997. The vacancy caused by resignation of the elected Chairman is to be filled, in accordance with bye-law 31(2), by calling a special meeting of the Board of Directors to be presided over by an Election Officer to be designated or nominated by the Registrar of cooperative societies. In exercise of those powers under the bye-law read with Rule 41(26) of the Rules under the Act, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 26-6-1997 empowered Shri M.B. Singh, Additional Collector, Rewa to preside over the meeting for holding election to the office of Chairman in the bank. 5. In exercise of those powers under the bye-law read with Rule 41(26) of the Rules under the Act, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 26-6-1997 empowered Shri M.B. Singh, Additional Collector, Rewa to preside over the meeting for holding election to the office of Chairman in the bank. 5. There appears to be a lacuna in the bye-laws as there is no provision therein to fill the office of Chairman even by a stop-gap arrangement pending regular election to the post of Chairman. Talcing aid of bye-law No. 35(3), the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 23-6-1997 appointed one of the Board of Directors Shiv Bahadur Singh as the in-charge or officiating Chairman. Bye-law 35(3), as agreed to by the counsel appearing for the parties, provides for filling a casual vacancy in the office of Chairman because of the latter's sickness or leave. It provides that in such a casual absence of the elected Chairman, Vice Chairman, on the written order specially issued by the Chairman, would exercise power of Chairman for a prescribed period. Bye-law 35(3) could not have been utilised for making officiating appointment of Chairman pending election to the office of Chairman for filling the permanent vacancy in the said office. In the absence of express provision in the bye-laws permitting interim arrangement for filling the office of Chairman pending election, it appears that bye-law 32, Clause (Bha) could be utilised for the purpose and the resolution taken by the Board on 23-6-1996 may be supported on the basis of bye-law 32, Clause (Bha). 6. Learned counsel Shri v. K. Tankha appearing in this petition and Shri P.R. Bhave appearing in the two connected petitions, very strongly criticised and condemned the intervention of the Collector, Sidhi in such a situation for filling the vacancy of Chairman by way of a stop-gap arrangement pending regular election to the said office. According to them, the Collector had absolutely no power or authority under the provisions of the Act to intervene and pass the impugned order dated 24th July 1997 (Annexure-P/14) by stating that as the office of Chairman fell vacant by resignation of Rajbali Singh, under bye-law 35(3) the Vice Chairmap would automatically assume the said office. According to them, the Collector had absolutely no power or authority under the provisions of the Act to intervene and pass the impugned order dated 24th July 1997 (Annexure-P/14) by stating that as the office of Chairman fell vacant by resignation of Rajbali Singh, under bye-law 35(3) the Vice Chairmap would automatically assume the said office. On the aforesaid order of the Collector, the Vice Chairman of the bank, Smt. Champa Devi (respondent No. 2), by a notice issued by her on 26-7-1997 (Annexure-P/15 in W.P. No. 3407/97) intimated to various authorities of the co-operative department and the local administration that she had assumed office of the Chairman on 26-7-1997. Soon after assuming the office, Champa Devi (respondent No. 2) got published a notice in the local news paper 'Dainik Samay' of 31-7-1997 (Annexure-P/8) hereby 35 employees of the bank, who are petitioners in these three petitions, have been terminated from service. With regard to Petitioner Shivraj Singh, a separate order was also issued on 28-7-1997 (Annexure-P/17) whereby it was intimated that consequent to the revival of the disciplinary enquiry against him, and on the basis of the enquiry report finding him guilty, his services have forthwith been terminated from the post of Branch Manager of the bank. 7. The learned counsel in the petitions, appearing for the petitioners, submit that the Collector had no authority or power whatsoever to intervene and instal respondent No. 2 Champabai, the Vice Chairman, as the officiating Chairman of the bank and she could not in her illegally assumed capacity as Chairman arbitrarily terminate the services of such a large number of employees. On behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that there can be no worse case of atrocious exercise of power by an intruder to the office and this Court should not only quash all actions taken by Champa Devi (respondent No. 2) but should also direct reinstatement of the employees with all benefits attached to their posts. 8. Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, at the time of admission of this petition, entered a caveat on behalf of the bank, respondent No. 2 Champa Devi and respondent No. 4 Collector. The Court granted him time to justify the actions taken by the parties whom he represents. On their behalf, learned counsel Shri Ghildiyal has filed a return. 8. Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, at the time of admission of this petition, entered a caveat on behalf of the bank, respondent No. 2 Champa Devi and respondent No. 4 Collector. The Court granted him time to justify the actions taken by the parties whom he represents. On their behalf, learned counsel Shri Ghildiyal has filed a return. In his strenous effort to support the actions of the bank, Champa Devi in her assumed capacity as Chairman and the Collector Sidhi, learned counsel appearing for them relies on the provisions of section 49-C and section 66 of the Act. On the basis of the abovementioned provisions of the Act, it is urged that the Collector could act as the nominee of the State Government and the Registrar. Reliance on the above provisions, in the opinion of this Court, is totally misplaced and the action of the Collector has no legs to stand. Under section 49-C, the State Government has been empowered to give directions in public interest to the co-operative society. The power vested in the State Government cannot be exercised by the Collector. So far as the provisions of Sec. 66 are concerned, any dispute arising in the society can be decided only by the Registrar in accordance with section 64 and for that purpose he may himself decide it or transfer it for decision to a nominee. It cannot be said that the Collector was the nominee of the Registrar within the meaning of section 66 because no such nomination has been produced. The Collector, therefore, also could not assume any power under section 66 of the Act. 9. It is regrettable that the Collector Sidhi should have allowed himself to be used as a ploy to instal Champa Devi in the office of the Chairman. It was stated at the bar that the Collector acted under political influence. That allegation having not been substantiated, cannot be accepted, but it is rather surprising that the Collector, in the matter of a co-operative society, decided to intervene completely oblivious of want of any authority or power in him under any provisions of law. If there was any gap in the bye-laws and the office of Chairman could not be filled even temporarily until the elections to that office, the matter should have been reported to the Registrar under the Act for suitable action or direction. If there was any gap in the bye-laws and the office of Chairman could not be filled even temporarily until the elections to that office, the matter should have been reported to the Registrar under the Act for suitable action or direction. The Board of Directors was the supreme body of the bank and it had taken a decision to appoint one of the Directors Bahadur Singh as Acting Chairman. It is true that normally the bye-laws should have provided that in the absence of Chairman and in case of casual vacancy in that office, Vice Chairman would exercise powers of Chairman, but there is no such provision in the bye-laws of the bank. The Board of Directors, therefore, alone could have acted under bye-law 32 (Bha). 10. There is no manner of doubt to this Court that the Collector had not even a semblance of authority to interfere, and intervene in the affairs of the bank much lass of installing Champa Devi, respondent No. 2, as Acting Chairman. Obviously, for the aforesaid reason, respondent No. 2 Champa Devi was only an intruder to that office. The assumption of office by her has no sanction in the provisions of the Act or the bye-laws. Whatever actions she had taken in that capacity are, therefore, void and nullity. 11. The alternative submission, made on behalf of the respondents by their counsel appearing, is that the action of respondent No. 2 Champa Devi in her assumed capacity as Acting Chairman of the bank are saved under the 'de facto doctrine'. Reliance for the aforesaid purpose is placed on Pushpadevi M. Jatia vs. M.L. Wadhavan, AIR 1987 SC 1748 and Central Bank of India vs. C. Bernard, (1991) 1 SCC 319 . This Court has looked into the cases cited in support of the 'de facto doctrine' taken aid of. The two decisions aforesaid rely on the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Gokaraju Rangaraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1473 . 12. Having examined the law on the subject, this Court finds that the 'de facto doctrine' is of no assistance to the respondents in this case. As is explained in the case of Gokaraju Rangaraju (supra), the doctrine is applicable only to maintain order and regularity and to prevent confusion in the conduct of public business and insecurity to private rights. Having examined the law on the subject, this Court finds that the 'de facto doctrine' is of no assistance to the respondents in this case. As is explained in the case of Gokaraju Rangaraju (supra), the doctrine is applicable only to maintain order and regularity and to prevent confusion in the conduct of public business and insecurity to private rights. It is for the aforesaid public purpose that the act of officers de facto are not supposed to be questioned because of want of legal authority. They can be so questioned, not in any collateral proceedings, but only by direct proceedings instituted for the purpose by the person affected. The de facto doctrine is, therefore, available only for the good order and peace of society and not where the acts of an intruder to the public office are challenged by the parties directly affected by the actions of the illegal holder of such office, [See - AIR 1977 SC 237 , The State of Haryana vs. The Haryana Co-operative Transport Ltd. and others. The Supreme Court in the cases (supra) has made a distinction between "person who holds office under colour of lawful authority though his appointment is defective" and "a person who is merely an intruder or usurper of that office". The de facto doctrine is applicable only to the former situation. In the instant case, as respondent No. 2 Champa Devi is totally an intruder or usurper of the office on the basis of an illegal order passed by the Collector, the de facto doctrine cannot be allowed to be availed by the respondents. 13. Lastly, in his bid to somehow support the order and the actions taken by the answering respondents learned counsel appearing for them urged that now a duly elected Chairman has assumed office in the bank and the Board, in its subsequent meeting held, on the recommendations of the Staff Sub Committee, ratified all the actions of the respondent No. 2, the Acting Chairman. 14. The last contention advanced also has no force. Since the action taken by Champa Devi was absolutely without any power and authority, such a void action cannot be ratified by the subsequent resolution of the Board. 14. The last contention advanced also has no force. Since the action taken by Champa Devi was absolutely without any power and authority, such a void action cannot be ratified by the subsequent resolution of the Board. As has been pointed out by the counsel appearing for the petitioners, the service conditions of the employees of the bank are regulated by M.P. District Cooperative Land Development Bank Employees service (Recruitment, Control and Conditions of Service)' Rules which are framed under the Act. Under the said service Rules, it is only the staff Committee which has power to take disciplinary action against the employees. Here, some of the petitioners are confirmed employees and many others have put in long years of service. Their services could not be abruptly terminated without giving them a show cause notice or hearing in accordance with the Service Rules. Learned counsel for the respondents in the course of hearing, made a mention of the fact that the out-going Chairman had made many illegal appointments and had dropped disciplinary action in serious case of misconduct against petitioner Shivraj Singh Chouhan, the Branch Manager. It is in the interest of the bank and, to ensure its proper management and functioning that the Acting Chairperson passed orders of large scale terminations. 15. Whatever may have been the illegality committed by the out-going Chairman, the bank has to act in accordance with the service Rules which govern the conditions of service of the employees of the bank. respondent No. 2 by assuming office for a short duration, could not arrogate to herself such despotic power. There appears to be sufficient justification for the criticism levelled on behalf of the petitioners that someone acting behind her has been instrumental in the impugned action as she is though literate is not educated enough to understand the implications of her actions. The bye-laws provide for appointment of at least one woman member as Vice Chairman. In the democratic institutions, there is no educational qualifications prescribed anywhere for any elected office or post. That appears to be the root cause of all such illegal and arbitrary actions and thus failure of the efficient functioning of democratic institutions. It is for the concerned authorities in the State to pay attention to this problem and take remedial action. 16. Consequently, the petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. That appears to be the root cause of all such illegal and arbitrary actions and thus failure of the efficient functioning of democratic institutions. It is for the concerned authorities in the State to pay attention to this problem and take remedial action. 16. Consequently, the petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned order of the Collector dated 24th July, 1997 (Annexure-P/14), the order dated 30-7-1997 (Annexure-P/16) passed by the respondent No. 2, and her subsequent orders dated 28-7-1997, and 2-8-1997 passed against the petitioner, cumulatively marked as Annexure-P/17, and the mass terminations made by her by publication in newspaper dated 31-7-1997 (Annexure-P/8) are all quashed. The respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the petitioners in. service and treat them to be validly continuing on their respective posts and pay them all monetary benefits attached to their posts. In the circumstances, this Court considers it fit to ward costs in favour of the petitioners. Counsel fee Rs. 1000/-, if certified. The cost awarded shall be paid jointly by the Collector, Sidhi and Champa Devi (respondent No. 2) Vice Chairman of the bank who acted in her assumed capacity as Acting Chairman. Petition allowed