Judgment Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. The petitioner in this writ petition dated December 10th, 2007 is questioning the order of the Chief Executive Officer, Malda District Central Fishermen’s Co-operative Society Limited dated June 14th, 2007 (at page.21) suspending her with immediate effect. At the date the suspension order was made the petitioner was working in the cooperative society as a clerk dealing with cash. Allegation of misappropriation was made against her. An FIR was lodged. Under the circumstances, the authority made the order suspending her. Though in the writ petition the validity of the suspension order has been questioned, in the course of argument counsel for the petitioner has said that he is pressing only the point regarding increase in the amount of subsistence allowance. His contention is that since the suspension order was made in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971, on expiration of three months from the date of suspension, the petitioner became entitled to get subsistence allowance at the increased rate. Counsel for the registrar of co-operative societies disputes the position. He is right in saying that the authority issuing the suspension order wrongly referred to the West Bengal Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 which had no manner of application to the petitioner who was governed by the statutory rules made in the Appendix mentioned in r.108 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987. In R.16(d) of the Appendix it has been specifically mentioned that a suspended employee of a co-operative society will be entitled to get increased subsistence allowance if the period of suspension exceeds one year. Facing with the situation, counsel for the petitioner argues that since the suspension order was not made in terms of r.16 of the Appendix to r.108 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 1987, it is liable to be quashed. Here again, I agree with counsel for the registrar that simply because the authority issuing the suspension order did not specifically mention the rule in his order, there is no reason to say that the order is liable to be set aside. The provisions in r.16 mentioned hereinbefore empowered the authority to suspend the petitioner. Hence the order, in my opinion, does not call for any interference, though provisions of certain rules not applicable to the petitioner were referred to therein. The provisions in r.16 mentioned hereinbefore empowered the authority to suspend the petitioner. Hence the order, in my opinion, does not call for any interference, though provisions of certain rules not applicable to the petitioner were referred to therein. For these reasons, I hold that at the present moment the petitioner is not entitled to say that the society is liable to pay her subsistence allowance at the increased rate. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order for costs.