Judgment :- By the impugned order dated 5. 2001, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivagangai Region, in exercise of his powers under section 76 (1) (b) of the Tamlnadu Co-operative Societies Act has placed the petitioner under suspension, on the grounds that his retention would cause hindrance for the investigation to be conducted in respect of a criminal case in F.I.R.No.7/2000, pending before the C.C.I.W., Sivagangai. The suspension was also resorted to in public interest. Pursuant to the said order, the Special Officer of the second respondent-Society has passed an order dated 6. 2001, placing the petitioner under suspension. Both the orders are under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr.V.Govardhan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that for the very same allegation of misappropriation of Banks money, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 28. 1999 and lateron, he was reinstated in service with effect from 7. 2000. He further submitted that after conducting a departmental enquiry into the above said allegation, a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was also imposed, pending disposal of the criminal case and in these circumstances, there is no need to place the petitioner under suspension once again. He also submitted that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to direct the Board to suspend the petitioner on the same set of charges. For the above said reasons, he prayed that both the orders are liable to be set aside. 3. The second respondent in his counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the then Board of the Chinnakannanur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank on 29. 99 as there were serious charges of misappropriation against him. On the charge memo dated 27. 2000, a domestic enquiry was held in which the enquiry officer found that the charges are proved. But recommended for a minor punishment. The Board after taking a lenient attitude has imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The Board was superceded in May 2001 and a Special Officer was appointed. According to the second respondent, all the relevant documents relating to the disciplinary proceedings of petitioner were missing from the files of the Bank. The Board after taking a lenient attitude has imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The Board was superceded in May 2001 and a Special Officer was appointed. According to the second respondent, all the relevant documents relating to the disciplinary proceedings of petitioner were missing from the files of the Bank. Though the then President has claimed that he had handed over the files to the Secretary, the same has been denied by the petitioner, who functioned as the Secretary of the Bank. 4. The second respondent has further submitted that since the offence of misappropriation relates to a huge sum of Rs.13,00,000/-, prosecution was initiated by the Deputy Registrar against the petitioner and others and CCIW has registered a case in Crime No.7/2000. 5. The second respondent has further submitted that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in exercise of the powers granted under section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act, directed that the petitioner, Secretary should be placed under suspension, in view of the criminal case pending before CCIW in public interest. Therefore, he submitted that the suspension has been made in public interest. The second respondent has further submitted that an enquiry under section 81 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act has been conducted and based on the same, action has been initiated against the then Board of Directors, including the Secretary. In these circumstances, the second respondent has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. Placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court, in K. Marappan Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal and another reported in (2006) 4 M.L.J. 641 , has held as follows: ".......The bye-laws made by a Co-operative Society registered under the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 do not have the force of law. Hence, where a Society cannot be characterised as a State, the service conditions of its employees governed by its bye-laws cannot be enforced through a writ petition." "In the absence of special circumstances, the Court will not ordinarily exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Act provides for an alternative remedy." The second respondent has further submitted that the Writ Petition is not aintainable in law. For the above said reasons, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. For the above said reasons, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. Pleadings disclose that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies had initiated an enquiry under section 81 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act and based on the same, action has been initiated against the then Board of Directors, including the Secretary, namely the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the then Board of Directors on 29. 99 and following a domestic enquiry into charges levelled against him, a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was also imposed on the petitioner. Section 76 of the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act reads as follows: "76. Suspension of a paid officer or servant of society:- .(i) 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 had 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 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 by-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." 9. The impugned order reads that the petitioner was placed under suspension, on the ground that his retention would cause hindrance for a fair investigation to be conducted by the Police in relation to a criminal case in F.I.R.No.7/2000 pending on the file of C.C.I.W., Sivagangai. In so far as the exercise of power by the Joint Registrar by which the petitioner was placed under suspension, this Court is of the considered view that since the irregularities have come to notice during the enquiry under section 81 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Society, Sivagangaihas directed to place the petitioner under suspension under section 76 of the Act, pending investigation into a criminal case for an allegation of misappropriation of banks money to the tune of Rs.13 Lakhs. 10. Record of proceedings shows that while entertaining this Writ Petition, this Court by an order dated 7. 2001 has granted an interim stay of the suspension order and the same has been made absolute on 19. 2003. It is stated that the petitioner is continuing in service on the strength of the interim orders. Learned counsel appearing for the parties are not in a position to inform the stage of the criminal case pending on the file of CCIW, Sivagangai. The Full Bench decision of this Court in K.Marappan Vs. 2003. It is stated that the petitioner is continuing in service on the strength of the interim orders. Learned counsel appearing for the parties are not in a position to inform the stage of the criminal case pending on the file of CCIW, Sivagangai. The Full Bench decision of this Court in K.Marappan Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal and another reported in (2006) 4 M.L.J. 641 , has held that: "(i) If a particular Co-operative Society can be characterised as a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution (applying the tests evolved by the Supreme Court in that behalf), it would also be an Authority within the meaning and for the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution. (ii) Applying the tests in Ajay Hasia V. Khalid Mujib Sehrewardi (supra) it is held that a Co-operative Society carrying on Banking business cannot be termed as an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. (iii) Even if a Society cannot be characterised as a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, a writ would lie against it to enforce a statutory public duty cast upon the Society. In such a case, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether the Society is being treated as a person or an Authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution and what is material is the nature of the statutory duty placed upon it and the Court will enforce such statutory public duty. Although it is not easy to define what a public function or public duty is, it can reasonably be said that such functions are similar to or closely related to those performable by the State in its sovereign capacity. (iv) A Society, which is not a State would not normally be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but in certain circumstances, a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons as there may be statutory provisions which need to be complied with by all concerned including Societies. If they violate such statutory provisions, a writ would be issued for compliance of those provisions. .(v) Where a Special Officer is appointed in respect of a Co-operative Society which cannot characterised as a State, a writ would lie when the case falls under Clauses (iii) and (iv) above. If they violate such statutory provisions, a writ would be issued for compliance of those provisions. .(v) Where a Special Officer is appointed in respect of a Co-operative Society which cannot characterised as a State, a writ would lie when the case falls under Clauses (iii) and (iv) above. .(vi) The bye-laws made by a Co-operative Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 do not have the force of law. Hence, where a Society cannot be characterised as a State, the service conditions of its employees governed by its bye-laws cannot be enforced through a writ petition. (vii) In the absence of special circumstances, the Court will not ordinarily exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Act provides for an alternative remedy. (viii) The decision in M.Thanikkachalam v. Madhuranthagam Agricultural Co-operative Society (supra), is no longer good law, in view of the decision of the seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (supra) and the other decisions referred to here before." 11. In view of the Full Bench decision, the Writ Petition challenging the suspension passed by the respondents, is not maintainable in law. The petitioner has got a statutory remedy to file a revision before the competent authority under the Act. Therefore the Writ Petition is dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the competent authority under the relevant provisions of the Act. However, petitioner shall file a revision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. As the petitioner is stated to be in service on the interim orders passed by this Court, the revisional authority shall dispose of the revision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the revision and the meanwhile, he shall not be disturbed. 12. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above directions. No costs.