ORDER The petitioner, an employee of The Muzaffarpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (for brevity the respondent Bank), has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the validity, correctness and propriety of the order dated 16.2.2013 (Annexure-2) issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Bank, whereby he has been transferred from Sahebganj Branch and has been posted at the Headquarter of the respondent Bank at Muzaffarpur on administrative ground and out of expediency of the respondent Bank. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there are no justifiable grounds for transferring the petitioner from sahebganj Branch to the Headquarter of the respondent Bank at Muzaffarpur on administrative ground, as pendency of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner cannot be a valid ground for his transfer. According to him, the departmental proceeding against the petitioner is pending since 1994, and further it has been stayed by an order dated 13.8.2012 (Annexure-3) passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14536 of 2012 by a Bench of this Court and the matter is till pending. Therefore, according to him, even if the petitioner joins at the Headquarter, the respondent Bank cannot proceed with that departmental proceeding. 3. It was next contended that the petitioner is at the verge of superannuation, therefore, at the fag end of his service career he should be allowed to remain at the place of his choice. It was further contended that the state of Bihar has pervasive control over the respondent Bank, hence it is an instrumentality of the State under the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable. In support of his above contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi[ (1981) 1 SCC 722 = AIR 1981 SC 487 ], U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey [ (1999) 1 SCC 741 ], Gayatri De Vs. Mousumi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. [ (2004) 5 SCC 90 ], Zoroastrain Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. District Registrar, Coop. Societies ( Urban)[ (2005) 5 SCC 632 ], as also a Full Bench judgment of our own High Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Sah Vs. The State of Bihar [ 2000 (4) P.L.J.R. 273 .]. 4. Mousumi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. [ (2004) 5 SCC 90 ], Zoroastrain Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. District Registrar, Coop. Societies ( Urban)[ (2005) 5 SCC 632 ], as also a Full Bench judgment of our own High Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Sah Vs. The State of Bihar [ 2000 (4) P.L.J.R. 273 .]. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank and its functionaries, at the very out set, raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition before this Court. According to him, the respondent Bank is a Co-operative Society duly registered under the provisions of The Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. It is an autonomous body and is being run by a duly elected Board of Directors on the basis of a democratically conducted election. It is pointed out that though the Managing Director of the respondent Bank is a State Government Officer but he is there on deputation and performs all his duties and functions under the control and direction of the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank. It is claimed that the State Government has no control over the functioning and working of the respondent Bank. Therefore, it is neither a State nor an instrumentality of the State under the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 5. It was further submitted that the petitioner has not pointed out violation of any rules or by-laws of the respondent Bank while passing the impugned order of transfer. It was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is facing a departmental proceeding as also criminal proceedings on the charges of defalcation of more than rupees two crores while he was acting as In-charge Branch Manager at Kanti and Musahari Branches. Therefore, in order to expedite the departmental proceeding and out of expediency he has been transferred from Sahebganj Branch to Headquarter at Muzaffarpur. In support of his above contentions, the learned counsel for the respsondents has placed reliance on various judgments including that of in the case of Rajendra Prasad Sah Vs. The State of Bihar( F.B.) (Supra), Vidya Bhushan Singh Abhai Vs. The Bihar State Co-operative Milk Producer’s Federation, Ltd. [ 2010(4) P.L.J.R. 26 (F.B.)], Harendra Narain Banker Vs. In support of his above contentions, the learned counsel for the respsondents has placed reliance on various judgments including that of in the case of Rajendra Prasad Sah Vs. The State of Bihar( F.B.) (Supra), Vidya Bhushan Singh Abhai Vs. The Bihar State Co-operative Milk Producer’s Federation, Ltd. [ 2010(4) P.L.J.R. 26 (F.B.)], Harendra Narain Banker Vs. The State of Bihar [1985 B.B.C.J. 650 (D.B.) and Ajmer Singh Vs. The Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Punjab [AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 107 (F.B.). 6. After having heard the parties at great length, and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent Bank in the year 1985 on the post of Assistant and subsequently, he was made as In-charge Branch Manager at Kanti Branch as also at Musahari Branch in the District of Muzaffarpur. During his tenure as In-charge Branch Manager, several cases of defalcation of Bank money were detected and as many as 17 F.I.Rs. have been lodged against the petitioner and others. The petitioner and other accused persons are alleged to have committed criminal breach of trust with respect to more than rupees two crores of Bank funds. The petitioner was put under suspension on 22.7.1993 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him in the year 1994. Order of suspension of the petitioner was finally quashed by this Court by an order dated 29.10.2010 whereafter, he was posted at Sahebganj, Branch of the respondent Bank. By an order dated 25.2.2012 (Annexure 1) issued by the Managing Direction of the respondent Bank, the petitioner was attached with the Headquarter of the respondent Bank. However, on his representation, the aforesaid order was recalled and the petitioner was allowed to continue at Sahebganj Branch. Almost one year thereafter, by the impugned order dated 16.2.2013 he has been transferred to the Headquarter out of expediency of the respondent Bank as also on administrative ground. 7. From the facts noticed above, it is apparent that during the entire service career of 28 years with the respondent Bank, the petitioner remained under suspension for about 17 years and he has been under active service with the respondent Bank only for about 11 years. Admittedly, the petitioner is facing a departmental proceeding with respect to the serious charges of defalcation of more than rupees two crores. Admittedly, the petitioner is facing a departmental proceeding with respect to the serious charges of defalcation of more than rupees two crores. He is facing as many as 17 criminal prosecutions with serious charges of defalcation of huge public money. 8. There is no denial that the respondent Bank is a Society registered under the provisions of The Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. In the recent Full Bench judgment of our own High Court in the case of Vidya Bhushan Singh Abhai Vs. The Bihar State Co-operative Milk Producer’s Federation Ltd. (Supra) it has been held that a writ is not maintainable against a Co-operative society unless such Co-operative Society is considered as an authority within the meaning of Article 226 or Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 9. From the materials available on record, this Court does not find the respondent Bank to be an authority within the meaning of Article 226 or Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that transfer of an employee is an administrative function to be discharged by the employer. The Courts or Tribunals are not the appellate forums to decide on the transfer of an Officer on administrative ground. Wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly without unnecessary interdiction by the Courts or Tribunals. In the matter of transfer of an employee, the scope of judicial review is limited, and High Court should not interfere with an order of transfer unless there is violation of any statutory rules and/or gross case of abuse of powers by the authority or on a mala fide ground. 10. Taking into consideration the factual background of the case and serious charges of defalcation of huge amount against the petitioner, and also taking into consideration the recent judicial pronouncement by a Full Bench of our own High Court, referred to above, coupled with the fact that the petitioner has not been able to point out violation of any rules or bye-laws of the respondent Bank, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. 11. In the result, the writ application has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. But, there shall be no order as to costs.