Judgment :- The petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned orders of suspension of the petitioner passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings dated 26. 2008, quash the same as null and void and direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension as duty and pay the salary. 2. Ms. Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of the third respondent Society and whose service is governed by the bye-law framed by the Society as well as under Sec.153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of suspension was made by exercising the power under the bye-law framed by the third respondent. Actually, the bye-law supersedes the provision of Sec.76(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, which reads as follows: 76. Suspension of a paid officer or servant of society .(1) where .(a) in the course of an audit under Sec.80 or an inquiry under Sec.81 or an investigation under Sec.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 aid 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 sub section (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 bye-laws or the order under sub-section (1) of Section 75, place or cause to be placed the 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) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2) and (3)and without prejudice to the provisions contained in Section 88 if, in the opinion of the Registrar, the competent authority or any registered society, as the case may be, either wilfully disobeys or wilfully fails to comply with any direction, issued under sub-section (1) or sub section (3), he may, by order, place or cause to be placed the paid officer or servant under suspension forthwith or extent or cause to be extended from time to time, the period of suspension of such paid officer or servant" 5. The jurisdiction of the authority, who conducts the enquiry either under Sec.81 or conducts audit or an inspection or investigation under Sec.82 or inspection of books under Sec.83 of the Act. During the course of such inspection, the authority can place any servant of the society under suspension whether falling under common cadre or otherwise, for misappropriation including breach of trust, which are enumerated under Secs.80, 81,82 and 83 of the Act. In the absence of any of those circumstances, it is the bye-law framed, which governs the petitioner. Therefore, on the face of it, there is no contradiction between the bye-law framed by the third respondent and Sec.76(1) of the Act. In the absence of any of those circumstances, it is the bye-law framed, which governs the petitioner. Therefore, on the face of it, there is no contradiction between the bye-law framed by the third respondent and Sec.76(1) of the Act. 6. In view of the same, the Judgment of the larger Bench in K. Marappan vs Dy.Registrar of Cooperative Society, Namakkal reported in ( 2006(4) LW 495 ) applies to this case. 7. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy available under the byelaw. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed.