Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The appellant, having been accused in the criminal proceedings and having taken in custody, was suspended on 4th July, 2005. Thereafter he was released on bail on 4th August, 2005. The suspension of the appellant was extended by the subsequent orders issued from time to time. 2. The order of suspension was challenged on the ground that the cadre authority passed the order without any approval of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies as required under Section 76 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1983). The learned single Judge, having noticed the facts and circumstances, dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 18-1-2007. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Section 76 of the Act, relevant portion of which reads as follows: "76. The learned single Judge, having noticed the facts and circumstances, dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 18-1-2007. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Section 76 of the Act, relevant portion of which reads as follows: "76. Suspension of a paid officer or servant of society.- (1) Where- .(a) in the course of an audit under section 80 or an inquiry under section 81 or an inspection or investigation under section 82, or inspection of books under section 83, it is brought to the notice of the Registrar that a paid officer or servant of a registered society whether or not he is borne on a common cadre of service has committed or has been otherwise responsible for misappropriation, breach of trust or other offences in relation to any registered society and if, in the opinion of the Registrar, there is a prima facie evidence against such paid officer or servant and the suspension of such paid officer or servant is necessary in the interests of any such society, or (b) a complaint against any paid officer or servant of any registered society whether or not he is borne on a common cadre of service of any alleged commission of any other offence involving moral turpitude is pending investigation or trial and if, in the opinion of the Registrar, the suspension of such paid officer or servant is necessary in the public interest or in the interest of such society, the Registrar may direct, where the paid officer or servant is borne on a common cadre of service the competent authority constituted under sub-section (3) of section 75, and in other cases, the registered society under which the paid officer or servant is employed, pending such investigation, trial and disposal of the matter, to place or cause to be placed such paid officer or servant under suspension from such date and for such period as may be specified by him. .(2) On receipt of a direction from the Registrar under subsection (1), the competent authority or the registered society, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the rules or the by-laws or the order under sub-section (1) of section 75, place or cause to be placed such paid officer or servant under suspension forthwith. .(2) On receipt of a direction from the Registrar under subsection (1), the competent authority or the registered society, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the rules or the by-laws or the order under sub-section (1) of section 75, place or cause to be placed such paid officer or servant under suspension forthwith. .(3) The Registrar may direct the competent authority or the registered society, as the case may be, to extend or cause to be extended, from time to time, the period of suspension and the paid officer or servant suspended shall not be reinstated except with the previous sanction of the Registrar. .(4) ... ... ... " 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied on Regulation 29 of the Tamil Nadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks Common Cadre Service Regulations, 2000 (in short the Regulations, 2000). 5. It appears that the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 75 of the Act, 1983, framed the Regulations, 2000, which was circulated by G.O. Ms. No.55, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 24-3-2000. While Regulation 28 stipulates the penalties which can be imposed, Regulation 29 deals with the disciplinary proceedings including suspension, relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: "29 DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS: .(a) ... ... ... .(b) ... ... ... .(c) ... ... ... .(d) (i) ... ... ... (vii) A cadre employee against whom proceedings have been taken either for his arrest on a criminal charge or who is detained under any law for preventive detention shall be deemed to be as under suspension for the period during which he is so detained in custody or is undergoing imprisonment and he shall not be allowed any pay and allowance other than the subsistence allowance admissible under sub clause (i) and (ii) of clause (d) above for such period until he is released from detention and allowed to resume duties as the case may be. (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 Cooperative 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 Cooperative Societies himself may order such suspension." 6. The Registrar of Cooperative 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 Cooperative Societies himself may order such suspension." 6. From the aforesaid section and the regulations, it is evident that while the cadre authority has been empowered to suspend an employee, the next higher authority, i.e. the Registrar of Cooperative Societies also so empowered to direct the suspension of an employee in appropriate case. In the present case, as the order of suspension has been issued by the cadre authority, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 7. There being no merit in the appeal, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to the costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.