Judgment The petitioner, who is working as a Secretary of the 2nd respondent Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank (PACB) has come forward to challenge the Notice issued by the 1st respondent dated 26. 2008 asking him to show cause on the penalty to be proposed against him. 2. This Court on 27. 2008 granted Notice of Motion. Pending Notice of Motion, an interim stay was granted. 3. The grievance of the petitioner was that against the suspension and the charge memo issued by the 2nd respondent Society by its Special Officer dated 9. 2003, he came before this Court in W.P.No.41209 of 2006. This Court by a final order dated 310. 2006 allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the termination and suspension order. The ground found favoured by this court was that the post of Secretary of Pikkiravari Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank was covered by a Common Cadre Regulations, more particularly, the Regulation issued pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.55, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 23. 2000. Therefore, the proceedings against such Common Cadre has to be issued only by the Common Cadre Authority and not by the Special Officer. It is in that view of the matter, the impugned order of termination and the suspension was set aside. 4. Subsequent to the order passed by this Court dated 310. 2006, it is seen that the 1st respondent by the impugned order dated 26. 2008 has issued the show cause notice only on the basis of the charge memo and the enquiry conducted on the orders of the Special Officer. The only difference is the old proceedings were placed before the Officer for the Cadre Authority and as per the Resolution, the impugned Notice was issued. 5. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is directly opposite to the direction issued by this Court, wherein the charge memo dated 9. 2003 has been set aside. Therefore, it at all, it is only the Cadre Controlling Authority should have issued the charge memo and proceed with the enquiry. Therefore, anything pursuant to the said charge memo including the proceedings conducted by the enquiry officer is invalid. 6. The contention raised by the petitioner is well founded. As the earlier order passed by this Court dated 310. 2006 has become final, the respondents are bound to obey the order passed by this Court. Therefore, anything pursuant to the said charge memo including the proceedings conducted by the enquiry officer is invalid. 6. The contention raised by the petitioner is well founded. As the earlier order passed by this Court dated 310. 2006 has become final, the respondents are bound to obey the order passed by this Court. In fact, against the earlier order passed by this Court, the respondents have preferred a writ appeal being W.A.No.172 of 2007. A Division Bench by its final order dated 7. 2008 dismissed the writ appeal and passed the following order: "As the 1st respondent -writ petitioner was suspended on 1. 2002, followed by charge memo issued on 9. 2003 and continued under suspension for about four years and eight months, without conclusion of the enquiry, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the order of suspension and the charge memo have been set aside. So far as the departmental proceedings are concerned, in view of the fact that there is allegation of irregularities and that the learned single Judge has given liberty to the competent authority to initiate fresh proceedings, we uphold the said observation of the learned single Judge. Whoever may be the competent authority, he may initiate proceedings within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not yet initiated due to the pendency of the present appeal. The writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed." 7. Since the said order has become final, there is no other option to the respondents except to implement the order passed by this Court. There is only one difficulty. Subsequent to passing of the order by this Court, the Government by G.O.Ms.No.122, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CN1) Department dated 7. 2008 has taken out the post of Secretaries of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank from the purview of the Common Cadre. Therefore, as of now, it is only the Special Officer, who alone can deal with the matter. In paragraph 8 of the said Government Order, it is stated as follows: "8. In respect of cases which are pending till the date of issue of the order, the cadre authority shall continue to deal with such cases till its finalisation." 8. Therefore, as of now, it is only the Special Officer, who alone can deal with the matter. In paragraph 8 of the said Government Order, it is stated as follows: "8. In respect of cases which are pending till the date of issue of the order, the cadre authority shall continue to deal with such cases till its finalisation." 8. Therefore, if any disciplinary proceedings are already initiated, then the common cadre authority will proceed with the said proceedings as if the order is still in force. In that view of the matter and also to give effect to the order passed by this Division Bench, it has to be stated that the proceedings of the petitioner is deemed to be pending with reference to the misconduct committed by him. 9. Therefore, the 1st respondent is hereby directed to proceed by issuing a fresh charge memo and after calling for explanation, complete the disciplinary action in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.