JUDGMENT By the Court.—We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Shukla, on the 27th of July, 2006. 2. The appointing authority has not signed the order of suspension, but the suspending authority has sent the matter for approval within the prescribed time. 3. Within what time the approval must come, if any, has not been the subject-matter of any finally decided judicial authority yet. We need not enter into that matter, as the necessity for the inquiry had been decided upon by the appointing authority three days before the order of suspension was passed. It might be that by operation of law, since four months have already elapsed, the inquiry has already gone over to the regional level, but disputes are raised to this effect that the suspended employee is not co-operating and, therefore the running of the time cannot be to his benefit, or to the detriment of the public authorities. 4. We endorse respectfully expedition of the inquiry and its conclusion as ordered by the Hon’ble Single Judge. In case, the matter is unnecessarily delayed, or even now, representations might be made for its expeditious conclusion by the appellant-writ petitioner to the Deputy Registrar; parties will take steps thereafter in accordance with law including the making of application, as they might be advised. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant also argued that since the approvals have not been forthcoming under sub-section (2) of Section 122 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, the Regulations themselves have not attained the validity and therefore, no suspension can be imposed on the basis thereof. The argument is simply a red herring. The authority in question is an authority under Section 123 of the said Act. The Regulations are quite in order as per that Section. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. ———