Judgment : 1. Writ petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the proceedings of the respondent dated 06.11.2001 suspending the petitioner from service and quash the same. 2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP taking notice/ what comes to be known is that the petitioner was working as sales woman by order dated 27.8.1980 and she was promoted to the post of Secretary of the Respondent Bank from 1.1.1997; that while this being so/ the respondent has placed her under suspension on 6.11.2001 on the grounds that the petitioner has not recovered the loans; there had been irregularities in grant of jewel loans, Deposit of Rs.52 lakhs in Nanganallur Co-operative Housing Society; Advance of loan for construction purposes; irregular appointments; failure to attend meetings, Closure of the Bank on 27.1.2001 etc. that subsequent to the said suspension order, the respondent issued Charge Memo, dated 5.2.2002 etc. that she sent a representation and requested for revocation of the said order on 15.11.2001, the respondent has not taken any action till' date; that having aggrieved the petitioner has come forward to file the above Writ Petition with the prayers extracted supra. 3. The only point that is raised in a legal manner testifying the validity of the order is questioning the jurisdiction of the Special Officer/ who passed the suspension order. Time and again, this Court decided against stating that under the Bye laws and different G.Os., the Special Officers are empowered in exercising their jurisdiction either to place under suspension or to remove from out of office on enquiry and therefore the question raised on the part of the petitioner's counsel does not hold 4. There is sufficient force in the arguments of the learned AGP (Cooperation). Moreover, besides the empowerment of the authorities with such powers to place the employees of the Cooperative Society under suspension in certain circumstances, it is only subject to an enquiry to be instituted, which is made clear in the order itself and therefore, this is not the stage at which the Court should exercise its powers of judicial review to interfere with the suspension order since a free and fair enquiry is to be held into the delinquencies in the interest of the society. Further more such suspensions could be easily resorted to since the underlying factor is that suspension is not a punishment nor could it jeopardise the genuine interests of the delinquent in any manner which is only subject to the outcome of the enquiry, and hence, this Court is of the view that the interference of this Court sought to be made into the impugned order at this stage of the case is quite uncalled for. In result, (i) the above writ petition is without merit and the same is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. (ii). No costs. (iii) Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. Nos.33526 & 33527 of 2002 are also dismissed.