Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Secretary in the third respondent Bank and he has been carrying on his duties diligently, without any blemish. However, the second respondent, vide proceedings No.Na.Ka.6123/2000 Ve.Se.Sa., dated 212. 2000, had directed the third respondent to suspend the petitioner from the service and to conduct an enquiry, under Section 81 of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. The enquiry was to be conducted with regard to the alleged irregularities committed by the elected Board of the third respondent Bank. The proceedings of the second respondent is unwarranted and uncalled for. Based on the proceedings of the second respondent, the third respondent, vide proceedings, dated 212. 2000, had suspended the petitioner from service. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It has been stated that the Extension Officer Cooperation, Karur, who had inspected the Pugalur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, which is the third respondent herein, had filed a special report, dated 211. 2000, bringing to light serious irregularities and misappropriation of funds belonging to the Bank committed by the petitioner. Various petitions had been received from the public wherein serious allegations had been made against the petitioner. 4. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Karur, the second respondent herein, who is empowered to order an enquiry, under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, has ordered for an enquiry regarding the serious irregularities which had taken place in the third respondent Bank. He has authorised the Extension Officer, Co-operation, Karur, to conduct the enquiry, in his letter Rc.No.6123/2000 Ve.Se.Sa, dated 211. 2000. Based on the instructions issued by the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Karur, in exercise of his powers conferred under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, the Extension Officer, Co-operation, Karur, had initiated the enquiry against the petitioner. In order to conduct the enquiry, the second respondent had issued instructions to the President of the third respondent Bank to keep the petitioner under suspension, vide his letter Rc.No.6123/2000 Ve.Se.Sa, dated 212. 2000. In order to conduct the enquiry, the second respondent had issued instructions to the President of the third respondent Bank to keep the petitioner under suspension, vide his letter Rc.No.6123/2000 Ve.Se.Sa, dated 212. 2000. Accordingly, the President of the third respondent Bank had suspended the petitioner from service, with effect from 212. 2000. In such circumstances, the claims made by the petitioner are unsustainable and the writ petition is devoid of merits. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order, dated 212. 2000, issued by the President of the third respondent Bank and the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 212. 2000, are illegal and they are unlawful, since the petitioner, who is the Secretary of the third respondent Bank comes under the supervision and control of the first respondent, who is the cadre authority, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 6. 88, and by virtue of the said Government Order neither the second respondent nor the third respondent has any authority or power or jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner from service. The second and third respondents have issued the impugned orders without following the principles of natural justice, as he was not issued with a show cause notice before he was suspended from service. When the alleged irregularities are relating to the elected Board of the management of the third respondent Bank, it is improper for the second and third respondents to suspend the petitioner from service. In such circumstances, the impugned orders are contrary to law and G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 88. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner has been reinstated in service by the third respondent and therefore, no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition. 7. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that even though no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition at this stage, this Court may permit the petitioner to challenge any further proceedings that are passed against the petitioner by the respondents, including an order of suspension, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same. 8. 8. Considering the submissions, made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition, in view of the fact that the petitioner has been reinstated in service, by an order passed by the management of the third respondent Bank. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge any further orders that may be passed by the respondents, in accordance with law, if so advised. Without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition stands closed. No costs.