Judgment :- Challenge is made to the order of the respondent dated 23.09.2003. The petitioner has brought forth this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in his proceeding dated 23.09.2003 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to treat the period of Demotion as duty period in the category of Secretary with all monetary and other attendant benefits. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that, he was appointed as Secretary in the respondent-Bank on 112. 1981; that he was serving so till the date of the impugned order passed by the respondent; that prior to 1991, he did not work in any lower category in the Society; that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 19.07.2002; that subsequently, a charge memo was framed on 05.09.2002 and 210. 2002; that following the service of the charge memo, the petitioner tendered his explanation on 25.09.2002 and 12. 2002; that from the date of suspension till the date of the impugned order of reversion, he was not paid the subsistence allowance; that at the first instance, the report of the Enquiry Officer has to be served upon the petitioner and only thereafter, the Show Cause Notice should have been issued. But, in the instant case, it has not been done so. The respondent held the charge as proved and imposed a punishment of demotion from the Secretary to the post of Assistant Secretary. For the post of Secretary, as per G.O.Ms.No.55, only the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies was the competent authority to impose any punishment. In the instant case, the Special Officer has imposed the punishment of demotion without any jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned of demotion passed by the respondent was liable to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds in his sincere attempt of assailing the order under challenge. 5. In the instant case, the Special Officer has imposed the punishment of demotion without any jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned of demotion passed by the respondent was liable to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds in his sincere attempt of assailing the order under challenge. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent, placing reliance on a decision of this Court reported in 2006 (4) C.T.C. 689 (K.Marappan -vs- Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal), submits that the petitioner, during the relevant period, was working at the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Limited and as per the decision of this Court, once the Co-operative Society is carrying on the banking business, it could not be termed as an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and in the instant case, if the petitioner was really aggrieved, he has got an alternative remedy, which is provided under the Act and hence, he should not have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and apart from this, the complaints made by the petitioner are ,in no way, baseless. A proper enquiry was conducted and charge sheet was issued, in which, the petitioner participated and after proving the charges levelled against him, the impugned order of demotion was passed and he was reverted as Assistant Secretary and even on merits, the writ petition has got to be dismissed. 6. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made by both sides. After doing so, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case, where the order passed by the respondent has got to be quashed. It is not in controversy that the petitioner herein was appointed as Secretary on 112. 1981 and at that time, when the charges were levelled against him, he was actually working so. After the charges were framed, he tendered his explanation and not satisfied with the same, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry was conducted and according to the respondent, charges were proved. 1981 and at that time, when the charges were levelled against him, he was actually working so. After the charges were framed, he tendered his explanation and not satisfied with the same, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry was conducted and according to the respondent, charges were proved. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that from the time of suspension till the enquiry was over, he was not paid the subsistence allowance and thus, the Court is of the considered opinion that this itself would vitiate the entire proceedings and further, in the instant case, when the petitioner was actually appointed and he was doing service as Secretary, imposition of punishment of reversion to the post of Assistant Secretary cannot also be countenanced in law. Added further, in the instant case, the petitioner was actually working as the Secretary during the relevant period. As per G.O.Ms.No.55, the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies was the competent person to impose punishment. But unfortunately, the Special Officer has imposed punishment of demotion and thus, the order under challenge is also without jurisdiction. Insofar as the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent is concerned, it is not in controversy that the Co-operative Society, while carrying on banking business, cannot be termed as the instrumentality of the State within the meaning under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. But, their Lordships were of the opinion that if there was any violation of any statutory provision, a writ could be issued for compliance of those provisions. In the instant case, the statutory provisions are violated by not giving subsistence allowance during the pendency of the enquiry. While reverting a person from the post of Secretary to the post of Assistant Secretary and he himself has been appointed as Secretary in the respondent bank, the order passed by the Special Officer, who was not competent, is without jurisdiction. Under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the respondent has got to be quashed and it is, accordingly, quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Connected W.P.M.P. and W.V.M.P. are closed. No costs.