ARUN KUMAR MITRA, J. ( 1 ) 1. This Writ petition contains the following prayers :- (A) A Writ of mandamus shall not be issued , commanding the respondent authorities to Re-call and/or withdraw and/or to set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 28th May, 1993, which is set out as annexure 'c' to this Writ Petition; (b) a Writ of Mandamus shall not issue and commanding the respondents to Recall and/or to withdraw and/or to Quash and/or to set aside the decision and/or resolution dated 21st June, 1993 of the board of Directors of Respondent 1 of the said Co-operative operative Society which was communicated to the Petitioner vide letter dated 24th June, 1993, Annexure- "f" to this Writ Petition and further commanding the Respondents not giving effect or further effect to Annexure- T and 'c' herein. (c) For a Writ of Certiorari calling upon the Respondents and/or their agent, Servant, Subordinates to certify the records of the case and bring themselves up before the Hon'ble Court and/or return of the cause if any, pursuing the records your Lordship shall be pleased to quashed and/or set aside the impugned Show Cause Notice annexure 'c' and Impugned Suspension order Annexure-'f' herein. (d) For a Writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents and/or their agent, Servant, and subordinates from discharging your petitioner from the Service without due compliance of the Rule of law as much as in Rule of natural justice ;. ( 2 ) IN the Writ petition the case as has been made out by the petitioner is, inter alia, as follows-: the petitioner was appointed as Grade-Ill staff in permanent post under chapra Thana Agricultural Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter termed as said Society ). On 29. 3. 1993 the petitioner was posted as in-charge of Chapra Bazar Shop of the said Society. On the said date that is on 29. 3. 1993 after the completion of the work the petitioner closed the shop room made it unde lock and key and went away. On the next date that is on 30. 3. 1993 the petitioner attended his duty at 9-15 A. M. and opened the said shop room. He found that by cutting corrugated tin shed of the roof of the said shop room large quantum of cloth has been taken away by the process of theft. On the next date that is on 30. 3. 1993 the petitioner attended his duty at 9-15 A. M. and opened the said shop room. He found that by cutting corrugated tin shed of the roof of the said shop room large quantum of cloth has been taken away by the process of theft. Immediately the petitioner reported the matter to the Manager and secretary of the Society at head office and as per their verbal instructions the petitioner submitted written information before Chapra Police Station on 30. 3. 1993 at 12-30 P. M. The Duty Officer registered police case bearing chapra Police Case No. 67/93 dated 30. 3. 1993 under Section 461/379, I. PC. Investigation was started by the police. Relevant documents and records were seized. Accordingly stock verification was started as the police asked the society to submit a list of the stolen clothes. It was found that clothes amounting to Rs. 1,00,454. 23 was the closing balance as on 29. 3. 1993 whereas as per Stock Register on the said date the value of clothes was to the tune of Rs. 2,22,694. 63. As a result theft of cloth was to the tune of Rs. 1,22,240. 40. Management of the Society submitted a written report to the investigation Officer. Police arrested some persons in connection with the case produced them before the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, krishnanagar. The said Chapra Bazar Branch Shop Room of the said Society was under coverage of General Insurance for claim/loss out of Burglary, Theft etc, and the Insurance period was valid from 7. 1. 1993 to 6. 1. 1994. Management of the Society accordingly submitted a claim before the Insurance company. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was transferred from Chapra Branch to head office. On 28. 5. 1993 the petitioner received a Show Cause Notice dated 28. 5. 1993 issued by the Chairman of the said Society. The Chairman directed the petitioner to Show Cause as to why disciplinary action would not be taken against the petitioner for the aforesaid shortage of clothes in terms of Rule 108 (14) (lll) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules 1987 and directed the petitioner to submit his reply within seven days from the receipt of the Notice. The Chairman directed the petitioner to Show Cause as to why disciplinary action would not be taken against the petitioner for the aforesaid shortage of clothes in terms of Rule 108 (14) (lll) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules 1987 and directed the petitioner to submit his reply within seven days from the receipt of the Notice. A copy of the said Notice has been marked as Annexure 'c' to the Writ Petition and this is the impugned notice under challenge in the Writ petition. ( 4 ) THE writ petitioner submitted representation on 3. 6. 1993 on receipt of the said Show Cause Notice and prayed for time for preparing the reply of the Show Cause Notice and he wanted inspection of documents to submit the reply. The Board of Directors in its meeting dated 12. 6. 1993 considered the same and allowed time for further seven days. He was directed to submit the reply within 19. 6. 1993. The petitioner received a letter dated 12. 6. 1993 issued by the Secretary of the Society, on 18. 6. 1993 and in pursuance of thfe said letter the petitioner contacted the Asstt. Manager and accountant (General) at 1-00 P. M. and requested him to show the relevant records and documents as per the decision of the Board. But those were not shown to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner met the manager and stated the facts and prayed for necessary action. In such circumstances the petitioner was unable to give the reply within 19. 6. 1993 and the petitioner prayed for fifteen days time more from 19. 6. 1963. According to the petitioner inspite of his submission of representation dated 3. 6. 1993 and inspite of his submission of application dated 19. 6. 1993 Board of Directors of the Society did not consider the same and decided in its meeting dated 21. 6. 1993 to suspend the petitioner and the Secretary of the said Society communicated the said decision of the Board through office Memo dated 24. 6. 1993 which is made annexure-A to the Writ petition. ( 5 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the said suspension order preferred appeal before the members of the General Meeting which was scheduled to be held on 4. 7. 1993. The petitioner further states that Annual general Meeting dated 4. 7. 1993 was adjourned till 18. 7. 6. 1993 which is made annexure-A to the Writ petition. ( 5 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the said suspension order preferred appeal before the members of the General Meeting which was scheduled to be held on 4. 7. 1993. The petitioner further states that Annual general Meeting dated 4. 7. 1993 was adjourned till 18. 7. 1993 and in the said adjourned meeting an appeal preferred by the petitioner was placed for consideration but the Chairman of the said meeting did not allow the petitioner to make his submission before the appellate authority. Till 30. 8. 1993 the said decision of the Board was not communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner on 30. 8. 1993 submitted application before the Chairman of the said Society requesting him to communicate the decision of the General boady regarding the appeal against the suspension order but no reply was given, The petitioner however could collect a report submitted by the secretary of the Society before the General Meeting held on 4. 7. 1993 wherein it was stated that theft was committed at Chapra Bazar Branch Cloth Section to the tune of Rs. 1,22,240. 40 and the matter was referred to police administration and also to Insurance Company. The Investigation Officer of the Chapra Police Station arrested some persons in connection with the said case and the investigation has not yet been completed. The petitioner challenge the said Show Cause notice and makes the prayers in the Writ petition in the manner as stated above on different grounds. ( 6 ) ON the Writ Petition on 9. 12. 1993 ad-interim order was passed restraining the respondents from discharging the petitioner, if not already discharged from service till 20. 12. 1993 or until further order whichever is earlier. On 23. 12. 1993 the interim order was extended by the High Court till 28. 2. 1994 or until further order whichever is earlier. It does not appear from the records that any further extension was granted by the High Court. In the meantime during the pendency of the Writ Petition the petitioner filed two supplementary affidavits, one affirmed on 30. 9. 1996 and the other affirmed on 1. 8. 2001. In the second supplementary affidavit the petitioner annexed a copy of the order/memo No. CNCS/15/10/2001-02 dated 7. 6. 2001 which contains that as per decision in the meeting of the Board of. 9. 1996 and the other affirmed on 1. 8. 2001. In the second supplementary affidavit the petitioner annexed a copy of the order/memo No. CNCS/15/10/2001-02 dated 7. 6. 2001 which contains that as per decision in the meeting of the Board of. Directors of the society on 7. 6. 2001 the petitioner is discharged from his service in terms of west Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987 under Rule 108 (14) (lll) in connection with wilfully non-submission of Court orders as asked for several times. This order was made effective from 7. 6. 2001. Affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 3 affirmed by the Vice-Chariman of the society wherein it was stated that after the theft the Enquiry Committee was formed by the Board of the Society. The Enquiry Committee gathered information from neighbouring shop owners as well as the people of the locality and came to understand that incharge of the shop on 29. 3. 1993 even at 10-30 P. M. was in the shop though he should have no such business at that point of time as per duty roster of the branch. Actually some of the neighbouring people categorically informed the members of the Enquiry committee that the Branch Manager as well as the petitioner was in the office even at 10-30 P. M. The Enquiry Committee also gathered information that occurrence of theft might be held at midnight and all the members of the enquiry Committee unanimously viewed that goods valued at more than Rs. 1,22,000/- would not be pilfered during a span of sum of Rupees in a night because the hole created in a tin shed was not a big one since it is a co-operative Society and the price of the goods were categorically lower, therefore, none of the members of the Enquiry Committee believe that goods valued at more than lacs of rupees would be taken away by such short span of time through the holes created in a tin shed. The Enquiry Committee held that the person responsible for theft and/or misappropriation of huge money was the incharge of the Branch that is the writ petition and actually he made the mischief and gave a simple eyewash. The Enquiry Committee also viewed that the incharge of the Branch requested the authority to file a claim before the Insurance Company for such theft and on the other hand the Asstt. The Enquiry Committee also viewed that the incharge of the Branch requested the authority to file a claim before the Insurance Company for such theft and on the other hand the Asstt. Manager of the Branch requested the Society to intervene into the matter so that the people involved in the case should be punished. Thereafter the Show cause Notice impugned was issued. Subsequently several complaints were lodged against the petitioner regarding such theft and the criminal investigation is going on. It has also been stated in the opposition that it is true that the petitioner has lodged the first information report before the Chapra Police station but the real state is that with a view to escape liabilities the petitioner has lodged this complaint to divert the channel. The Enquiry Committee found that petitioner responsible for the incidence. The other allegations made in the writ petition has been, however, denied in the affidavit-in-opposition. ( 7 ) APART from following of the supplementary affidavits the petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-reply also. In the reply the petitioner reiterated his stand taken in the Writ Petition and annexed the minutes of Annual General meeting held on 4. 7. 1993 of the Society. From the minutes of the said meeting the petitioner wanted to show that the meeting adopted a resolution that as regards the theft of goods to the tune of Rs. 1,22,240. 40 on 29. 3. 1993 in Chapra Bazar Shop Room the Society has informed the police and the insurance Company and for the purpose of finding of reality the Society prayed for their co-operation. Simultaneously to ascertain the nature and reality the Society through their some of the old Board members made an internal enquiry. According to the petitioner, this is arbitrary. When the Board members have asked the police and the Insurance Company to ascertain the truth the Board Members cannot form an Enquiry Committee for the purpose of the same job and prior to ascertainment through the police case the ex parte enquiry was held and the petitioner was found guilty. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner himself lodged an FIR in so far as the theft is concerned. The criminal case has been initiated on the basis of said FIR. Some persons have been arrested. Police has been investigating the case. Investigation is not yet complete. The petitioner was suspended. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner himself lodged an FIR in so far as the theft is concerned. The criminal case has been initiated on the basis of said FIR. Some persons have been arrested. Police has been investigating the case. Investigation is not yet complete. The petitioner was suspended. Chargesheet was issued against him. Alleging the petitioner's involvement in the theft in the shop. The petitioner has neither been arrested by the police nor has been convicted in the criminal case and on the self-same offence the petitioner has been vexed twice. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he prayed for documents to give effective reply to the Show Cause but he was not supplied with the same. Enquiry was conducted against him and on the said enquiry he was found guilty but neither the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing nor the petitioner was supplied with any enquiry report. The learned Counsel also submits that the authorities asked from him for the certified copies of the order passed by the High Court in the instant Writ Petition and as would appear from the impugned order of termination the petitioner's service was terminated for non-supply of the certified copies of the orders passed by the High Court in this Writ Petition. All these factors go to show not only the illegality on the part of the said Society but also the malice caused in the matter. ( 8 ) THE petitioner's learned Counsel submits that before imposing capital punishment that is dismissal from service neither the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing nor the documents were given to the petitioner and principle of natural justice were violated grossly. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the Writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the Co-operative Society is not a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in their affidavit-in-opposition also they have stated that an Enquiry Committee was found by some Board members to conduct an Enquiry and he submitted a report and found the petitioner guilty of theft in the shop room. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that in their affidavit-in-opposition also they have stated that an Enquiry Committee was found by some Board members to conduct an Enquiry and he submitted a report and found the petitioner guilty of theft in the shop room. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner in reply relies on the decisions reported in AIR 1981 SC page 487 (Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib sehravardi and Ors.) and another decision reported in 96 Cal WN page 1086 (Dr. Amar Ch. Saha v. President, CSPCA and Ors. ). The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Writ Petition is maintainable and he also submits that the impugned order of dismissal from service is illegal, mala fide and is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties. Considered the averments made in the writ Petition in the affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-in-reply thereto. ( 11 ) LET us discuss the case stagewise. A theft was committed. The petitioner lodged an FIR. Criminal case was started. Some persons other than the petitioner were arrested. Investigation is going on and/or the criminal case is pending, admittedly as would appear from the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Society. It would clearly appear that an enquiry Committee was formed comprising of some Board members who conducted an enquiry behind the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and who found the petitioner guilty of the offence of theft pre-judging the criminal case and suspended the petitioner. The petitioner was also chargesheeted but along with the chargesheet neither the list of documents was given nor the list of witness was given. The petitioner prayed for inspection of relevant documents but that was not given. The petitioner was not given personal hearing and ultimately because of non-supply of certified copy of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in this matter the petitioner was dismissed from service. Now let us consider the point of maintainability. In this regard this judgment will be heavily encumbered if all the important decisions starting from AIR 1981 SC page 487 (supra) to the latest decision reported in (Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib ). (Steel authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers') are brought under discussion in this judgment. Now let us consider the point of maintainability. In this regard this judgment will be heavily encumbered if all the important decisions starting from AIR 1981 SC page 487 (supra) to the latest decision reported in (Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib ). (Steel authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers') are brought under discussion in this judgment. Only one judgment which is exactly on the point will suffice in this case. The said decision has been reported in 94 Cal wn page 1057 (Arjed All Gazi v. State of West Bengal ). The paragraphs 5 and 6 of this judgment makes the principles clear where it has been observed that "after considering the respective contentions of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and giving our anxious thought to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that having accepted the prayer of the writ petitioner, the Governing Body had already imposed a penalty of fine and reversion. Therefore, there was no occasion to take further step to cause enquiry on an admitted position and to pass an order of dismissal. In any event such enquiry having been made ex parte and behind the back of sri Gazi and punishment being passed ex parte without giving Sri Gazi an opportunity of being heard, there has been violation of the basic principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, there is hardly any impediment in quashing the impugned order of dismissal. But the difficulty lies in deciding the question about maintainability of the writ petition for issuing any writ or direction against the impugned order of dismissal. A Co-operative Society is formed by the private initiations of its members and despite the anxiety of the state Legislature to ensure functioning of a Co-operative society "in a deserted manner and making various provisions in the West Bengal Co-operative societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder to exercise controls in the functioning of the Co-operative Society by the Registrar of Co-operative societies and other officers of the State Government, a Co-operative Society is not a statutory body or an instrumentality of the State. The decisions made by various High Courts and also the Supreme Court on this question referred to hereinbefore are quite specific. The decisions made by various High Courts and also the Supreme Court on this question referred to hereinbefore are quite specific. Ordinarily a writ does not lie against a private body but the position will be entirely different if such private body is vested with statutory duties and functions. For inaction relating to such statutory duties or improper action contrary to the statutory provisions such private body becomes amenable to writ jurisdiction. In this connection, reference may be made to a Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 1974 AP 35. It has been held that High Court has powers to issue writ of certiorari even against a private body if it is vested with statutory powers affecting rights of citizens. In a case reported in AIR 1958 Bom 489, it was held by the Bombay High Court that for restraining it from abusing the powers under the side Act, at the instance of a consumer, a writ may be issued to a public utility concern. Following the said decision this Court in the case of Sudhir Chandra Neogi v Calcutta Tramways Company Ltd. , reported in AIR 1960 Cal 369 has held that writ would lie against Tramways Company, a public limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act for violation of any provisions of law for which there is no adequate remedy. In Francis john v. Director of Education reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 598, the Supreme court had held that in case of termination of service of a Head Master of a private school, which receives aid from Government under the Grant in aid code, a writ will lie, it has been held that the School, though a private body cannot escape from the consequences flowing from the breach of the code particularly when the Director of the Education, an instrumentality of the State has participated in the decision making process relating to the order of termination of service of the Head Master. In the decision made in Executive committee Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narayan reported in AIR 1976 SC 888 , it has been indicated by the Supreme Court that for enforcing a personal contract of employment, as a general rule, writ cannot be enforced but where the conditions of service are controlled by statutory rules and regulations, for breach of such rules and regulations, appropriate writ may be issued. In a very recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Amadi Mukta sadguru S. M. V. S. Jayanti Mahotsav Trust v. V. S. Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of 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. " The term 'authority' used in article 226 in this context must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term 'state in Article 12. It has also been held that 'mandamus is a wide remedy which must be easily available to reach injustice wherever it is found. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226. " ( 12 ) IN appears to us that in the instant case, the conditions of service of Sri Gazi as an employee of the Society have not been controlled by terms of contract but in the absence of terms of contract for service, such conditions have been left to be controlled by the said Rule 108 which is undoubtedly a statutory rule. The Society has, therefore, an obligation to comply with the said statutory rule in the matter of discipline relating to the employment of Sri Gazi. When a duty flows from the statutory rule in the matter of employment, although such employment may be at the inception a product of private contract between the parties, in the matter of regulation of the condition of service of such employment a duty of a public nature comes into operation. Accordingly, for breach of such obligation under statutory rules, a writ petition for appropriate writs and/or directions is maintainable. In view of the special facts involved in this case, the decision relied on by Mr. Bhattacharya are not applicable. It, however, must be made clear that co-operative Society in West Bengal is not a 'state' within the meaning of article 12 and is also not a public undertaking. It is essentially a private body formed at the initiations of private individuals. Bhattacharya are not applicable. It, however, must be made clear that co-operative Society in West Bengal is not a 'state' within the meaning of article 12 and is also not a public undertaking. It is essentially a private body formed at the initiations of private individuals. Hence, if the conditions of service of an employee of the Co-operative Society are not left to be controlled by the said statutory rules but are controlled by the terms of contract of service or bye-laws of the Society which is not a statutory rule, no writ will lie for enforcing any breach of the terms of employment of the employee of the Co-operative Society. " Rule 108 of the Co-operative societies Rules, 1987 on which steps have been taken have also been grossly violated when passing the order of dismissal against the petition. This rule also speaks of opportunity of hearing. ( 13 ) ENQUIRY Committee was formed. The petitioner was not called, enquiry conducted behind him and the petitioner was found guilty and he was not supplied with the enquiry report. The relevant documents were not supplied to the petitioner and he was given his reply to the chargesheet and principle of natural justice was grossly violated. The petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing which is another example of the violation of the principle of natural justice. The petitioner was found guilty by the Enquiry committee on the self-same offence which is pending before the criminal court. The glaring instance of an illegality is that the petitioner was dismissed from service on the allegation of non-supply of the certified copy of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the instant Writ Petition that is dismissal order was passed on an allegation which does constitute a charge in the chargesheet. The entire proceeding is illegal. The order of dismissal or the petitioner from services is illegal and is liable to be set aside. ( 14 ) IN view of the above discussions the Writ Petition is allowed. The disciplinary proceeding against the petition is set aside in its entirety. The impugned order of dismissal is set aside. The respondent society is directed to reinstate the petitioner in his service since the petitioner has been dismissed from service on frivolous charges and on blatently illegal manner. The disciplinary proceeding against the petition is set aside in its entirety. The impugned order of dismissal is set aside. The respondent society is directed to reinstate the petitioner in his service since the petitioner has been dismissed from service on frivolous charges and on blatently illegal manner. The respondent society will pay the petitioner the entire backwages after adjustment of the amount paid against subsistence allowance. The respondent society is, therefore, directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within a fortnight from the date of communication of the order. The respondent society will go on paying the petitioner of all his emoluments month by month. The society will pay the arrear dues of the petitioner by 12 (twelve) equal monthly instalments and in any event, the arrear dues is to be clear within 15 (fifteen) months positively. There will be no further order as to cost.