Judgment :- This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 31.8.2004 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the second respondent bank in its inception namely 16.8.1978 as Secretary, the second respondent being a co-operative institution constituted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed there under. The Society is having bye-laws and also special bye-laws relating to the service conditions of the employees of the society. 3. According to the petitioner, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as per Section 76 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, on the basis of the report of audit under Section 80 or enquiry under Section 81 or inspection or investigation under Section 82 or inspection of books under Section 83 can place the employee of the bank under suspension and to the knowledge of the petitioner there is no such report under various provisions stated above. 4. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that by virtue of G.O. Ms. No.55 of the Co-op­eration, Food and Consumer Protection De­partment dated 24.3.2000, the State Government while exercising its powers un­der Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Co-opera­tive Societies Act, 1983 has constituted Common Cadre Service relating to the post of Secretary of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks and ultimately the said Government Order has been held valid by this Court. As per the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Co-operative Banks Common Cadre Service Regulations 2000, the services of the Secretaries of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank like that of the petitioner were brought under the fold of common cadre service for which the common cadre authority alone is competent to have the disciplinary control and the authority is the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies of the respective regions. Therefore, according to the petitioner, when the first respondent is a cadre authority, the second respondent Special Officer has no jurisdiction either to suspend the petitioner or to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. 5. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit. Therefore, according to the petitioner, when the first respondent is a cadre authority, the second respondent Special Officer has no jurisdiction either to suspend the petitioner or to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. 5. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit. While admitting all the said facts raised by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the second respondent would contend that even though it is true that the first respondent is the common cadre authority who has got a right of disciplinary control over the petitioner, but at the same time the second respondent is having control relating to the punishment to be awarded to the employees in view of the Section 75 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act relating to censure or stoppage of increments upto two years without cumulative effect and any punishment beyond that has to be passed only by the common cadre authority namely the first respondent and in those cases the second respondent has to forward to the first respondent. 6. As per Section 2(7) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the control of the management of the affairs of the Society is entrusted with the Board and the second respondent being the Special Officer by virtue of the supersession of the Board automatically becomes controlling authority of the Society and he can exercise the minimum power to place an employee under suspension pending enquiry and inform the same to the first respondent being the cadre authority who is to proceed with the passing of the punishment. Therefore, while fairly, the second respondent is admitting the first respondent, being the common cadre authority and having power of disciplinary control he would only state that it does not prevent the second respondent being the controlling authority to pass orders of suspension and then refer the matter to the cadre authority. 7. Mr. S. Seenivasagam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that by virtue of the fact that the G. 0. Ms. No. 55, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection dated 24.3.2000 has been upheld by this Court in the judgment reported in 2003 (3) LLN 337, the constitution of Common Cadre Service in respect of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks and making the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies as cadre authority has become final. Ms. No. 55, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection dated 24.3.2000 has been upheld by this Court in the judgment reported in 2003 (3) LLN 337, the constitution of Common Cadre Service in respect of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks and making the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies as cadre authority has become final. When once under the service regulations, the cadre authority alone is empowered to take disciplinary action on all the employees of the bank, the second respondent who may have only administrative control cannot have disciplinary authority which includes power of suspension of the petitioner as Secretary of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank. 8. On the other hand, Mr. P. Chandra Bose, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent while it is true that the first respondent is the cadre authority, would submit that as per Rule 106(2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, when a Special Officer is appointed under Sections 88 and 89 on supersession of the Board, the Special Officer has right to suspend any person pending enquiry and report the same to the Registrar about the action taken by him. It is his contention that while admittedly before G.O.Ms.No.55, the second respondent had the power of taking disciplinary action and imposing punishment, now, the said power has been restricted by relegating the power to the first respondent being the cadre authority to pass orders. 9. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Corporation of City of Nagpur v. Ram Chandra and others AIR 1984 SC 626 : 1981 (2) SCC 714 : 1981 II-LLJ-6 (SC) to show that when once the second respondent has got administrative control of the entire bank it includes the order of suspension also since the control should be given a wider meaning as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. 10. He has also relied upon another judgment of this Court rendered in Raja Airuchelvi (smt.) v. Medavakkam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Mambalam Main Road, Medavakam Post, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District rep. by its Special Officer 2002-111-LLJ-740 to show that when an order of suspension is passed by the Special Officer, there cannot be a judicial review to interfere at that stage since, the enquiry has to be conducted subsequently. 11. by its Special Officer 2002-111-LLJ-740 to show that when an order of suspension is passed by the Special Officer, there cannot be a judicial review to interfere at that stage since, the enquiry has to be conducted subsequently. 11. He has also placed reliance on another judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in V.P. Rama Rao v. District Cooperative Officer/Registrar, Vizayanagaram and others 2004-II-CLR-737 to the fact that the bye-laws framed are not statutory and therefore, suspension of paid employees in respect of violations of bye-laws cannot be a subject matter of writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the second respondent and also perused the entire records. 13. At the outset, as stated earlier, the learned counsel for the second respondent would fairly admit the power and jurisdiction of the first respondent being the cadre authority, it is by virtue of the powers under Section 75(3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the Government has passed G.O.Ms.No. 55, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection on 24.3,2000 and accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks Common Cadre Service Regulations of 2000 has been framed. It is certainly a statutory rule governing the service regulations and it cannot be said that it has no legal force whatsoever. 14. A reference to the said statutory regulations, 2000 shows that especially regulation No. 3 which speaks about the constitution of the cadre authority states as follows: "3. Composition of Common Cadre: The Common Cadre of service shall be maintained separately for "A" Class Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks, "B" Class Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank and "C" Class Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks. The post of Secretary of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks in the district concerned shall form the respective Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank's Common Cadre Service. All the employees holding the post of Secretary of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks shall be deemed to have been absorbed in the respective Common Cadre of Service. For any such employee not willing to become a member of the said service, the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 75 of the Act will apply. Cadre Authority is the committee as provided in the Section 75 of the Act. For any such employee not willing to become a member of the said service, the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 75 of the Act will apply. Cadre Authority is the committee as provided in the Section 75 of the Act. Pending constitution of the committee, under first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 75 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in the region concerned shall be the "Cadre Authority" in respect of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks for a period of three years from the date of coming into force of these regulations." 15. It is not even the case of the second respondent that in respect of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks, the committees have been constituted for referring to the disciplinary proceedings as per the said service regulations, 2000 which is dealt with under Regulation 29(e) categorically as follows: "29(e). A cadre employee may be placed under suspension by the cadre authority and the order of suspension may be revoked by the cadre authority. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies may direct the cadre authority to place any cadre employee under suspension and if the cadre authority fails to do so the Registrar of Co-operative Societies himself may order such suspension.” 16. While admittedly, this regulation is in force I do not think that the second respondent will have any power to suspend the employee of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank. As correctly pointed out by the learned single judge for the petitioner, Section 89 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, has no application on the facts and circumstances of the case. This is more particularly, in the circumstances that the authority of the first respondent has not been denied by the second respondent. The only question that has to be decided is whether the first respondent having got disciplinary authority as per the statutory regulations, the second respondent can simultaneously have the power and place the Secretary of the Primary and report to the same with the first respondent for further action. 17. The only question that has to be decided is whether the first respondent having got disciplinary authority as per the statutory regulations, the second respondent can simultaneously have the power and place the Secretary of the Primary and report to the same with the first respondent for further action. 17. For the reasons stated above and also due to the reason that there is no provision under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act empowering the second respondent to place the Secretary of the Agricultural Co-operative Bank under suspension, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the second respondent by placing the petitioner under suspension has to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. However it does not prevent the first respondent who is the authority in respect of the Common Cadre Service to proceed in accordance with law in respect of the service conditions in the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. is closed. Petition allowed.