JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J. (Oral).: - The petitioner was working as Officer Grade-Ill in Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd., The Mall, Shimla at the time of filing this writ petition. He has assailed the order dated 10.6.1991 (Annexure A-26) and order dated 20.5.1993 (Annexure A-33) by way of this writ petition. By order dated 10.6.1991 (Annexure A-26) a penalty de-barring him from promotion for a period I of 10 years was imposed upon the petitioner under Rule 55-A of the! Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Employees (Terms of Employment and Working Condition) Rules, 1979. This order has been passed by the Managing Director as Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. By order dated 30.12.1992, the Managing Director has informed the petitioner that Board of Directors of the Bank had partly accepted the appeal filed by him and by taking a lenient view the penalty was reduced and instead he was awarded the following punishment :- (a) Shri A.D. Kashyap, Officer Grade-Ill, is debarred from promotion for a period of 3 years and the period of his suspension is regularised by granting him the leave of the kind due as under:- 140 days earned leave w.e.f. 7.7.1990 to 23.11.1990; ii) 655 days leave without pay from 24.11.1990 to 8.9.1992.. (b) Subsistence allowance already paid to Shri A.D. Kashyap will be adjusted towards salary dues." 2. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank was raised a preliminary objection that Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank is a Co-operative Society registered under the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act and is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. 3. He has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chandresh Kumar Malhotra v. H.P. State Coop. Bank and others, 1993(2) Sim.L.C. 243 wherein it is categorically held that orders passed by a Co-operative Society under its respective service regularizations against its employees in connection with their employment cannot be corrected by way of writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment in CWP No. 341 of 1993 titled Ajmer Singh v. The Hamirpur District Coop. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment in CWP No. 341 of 1993 titled Ajmer Singh v. The Hamirpur District Coop. Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd. and others in which it is held that if the order impugned is passed by a public servant while discharging sovereign duty of the State or any function under any law, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction. In the case before the Full Bench the Co-operative Society against whom the writ petition was filed had been superseded by the Registrar and an officer of the Government was appointed as Administrator. It was in this context that the Full Bench had held the writ petition maintainable. It was also stated that since this aspect of the matter was not before the Division Bench in Chandresh Kumar Malhotras case it cannot be said that writ petition is not maintainable when the order impugned is passed by a public servant on behalf of a Co-operative Society or by a statutory authority. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since Managing Director who has passed the order dated 10.6.1991 (Annexure A-26) was a member of Indian Administrative Service appointed under Section 35-B of Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the present writ petition is maintainable. This argument has been raised to be rejected. Section 35-B is as under :- "35-B. Appointment, powers and functions of Managing Directors. - (1) Where the Government has subscribed to the share capital of a co-operative society to the extent of rupees five lakhs or more, the Government may, notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of the society, nominate .. another member in addition to those nominated under Section 35 and appoint him as Managing Director: Provided that no person shall be appointed as Managing Director of a Co-operative Society unless he is a member of the Indian Administrative Service or the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service or Class-I Officer of the Co-operative Department, except the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Land Development Bank and the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Milk Federation where technical persons may be appointed as Managing Directors. (2) A person nominated and appointed as the Managing Director under sub-section (1) shall be ex-officio member of the committee and shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government and shall have a right to participate in the deliberations of the committee and shall also have the right to vote. (3) The Managing Director appointed under sub-section (1) shall exercise such powers as are assigned to him under the bye-laws or delegated to him by the committee. He shall discharge all such functions, consistent with the bye-laws as are assigned to him by the Government or the Registrar, he shall work under the superintendence and control of the committee. (4) The Managing Director of a Co-operative Society shall be its principal executive officer. All employees of the society shall function and perform their duties under his superintendence and control. (5) The Managing Director appointed under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on deputation with the society and his salary and allowances, as determined by the State Government, shall be paid from the funds of the Society." Sub-section (2) of Section 35-B states that a person nominated and appointed as the Managing Director under sub-section (1) shall ex officio member of the committee and shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government and shall have a right to participate in the deliberations of the committee and shall also have the right to vote. 5. Sub-section (3) states that the Managing Director appointed under sub-section (1) shall exercise such powers as are assigned to him under the bye- laws or delegated to him by the committee. He shall discharge all such functions, consistent with the bye-laws as are assigned to him by the Government or the Registrar. He shall work under the superintendence and control of the committee. 6. Sub-section (4) states that the Managing Director of a Cooperative Society shall be its principal executive officer and all employees of the society shall function and perform their duties under his superintendence and control. 7. Lastly, under sub-section (5) it is stated that the Managing Director appointed under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on deputation with the society and his salary and allowances, as determined by the State Government, shall be paid from the funds of the society. 8. 7. Lastly, under sub-section (5) it is stated that the Managing Director appointed under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be on deputation with the society and his salary and allowances, as determined by the State Government, shall be paid from the funds of the society. 8. These provisions leave no doubt that the Managing Director appointed by the Government as per sub-section (1) is the ex officio member of the committee and exercises powers as are assigned under bye-laws or delegated by the committee or by the Government or by the Registrar and all the employees of the society function and perform their duties under his superintendence and control. He may be a member of the Indian Administrative Service but while working as Managing Director he is on deputation with the society and functions as the principal executive officer of the society. He has passed the impugned order dated 10.6.1991 (Annexure A-26) as the Managing Director of the Society and not as a member of the Indian Administrative Service. The impugned order is also passed under the service regulations of the respondent-Cooperative Society, therefore, it cannot be said that since Managing Director who has passed the order dated 10.6.1991 (Annexure A-26) was an officer of the Government, his order is amenable to writ jurisdiction by applying the law laid down in the case of Ajmer Singh (supra). Moreover, this Court finds that the order dated 10.6.1991 had merged into the order dated 20.5.1993 (Annexure A-33) passed by the Board of Directors whereby the punishment awarded to the petitioner was reduced. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum. 9. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, interim order dated 20.12.1993 is vacated.