JUDGMENT : 1. Impugned in this petition is order no.Adm/7160 dated 28th August 2009, issued by of respondent no.4, whereby petitioner has been dismissed from the services of the Citizens’ Cooperative Bank Limited. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the grievance projected by petitioner in this petition is that the order, whereby his services have been dispensed with by respondents 3&4, is vitiated as the procedure, prescribed in J&K Cooperative Societies Service Rules, 1988, issued vide SRO 233 of 1988 dated 8th July 1988 (hereinafter called as “Rules of 1988”) for taking disciplinary action against delinquent employees of cooperative societies, to which aforesaid rules apply, has been observed in breach. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has in particular drawn attention of this Court to Rule 19 of Rules of 1988, to submit that the procedure laid down in the aforesaid Rules for initiating disciplinary proceedings against delinquent employee, has not been followed in letter and spirit. He has submitted that respondent no.4 was under obligation to serve a definite charge sheet accompanied by statement of imputations of misconduct along with list of witnesses on which respondents proposed to rely upon during inquiry, but aforesaid respondent did not provide the statement of imputations of misconduct or any list of witnesses despite petitioner having made a specific request in this behalf. It is also submitted that order impugned would vitiate as disciplinary authority himself acted as inquiry officer and therefore, became a judge of his own cause. He has also thrown challenge to order impugned on several other grounds; most of them emanating from different provisions of Rules of 1988. 4. Writ petition is resisted by respondents 3&4, who, besides rebutting averments made by petitioner in his petition, have taken a specific objection to the maintainability of writ petition. Learned counsel for respondents 3&4 has contended that in view of statutory remedy of appeal provided under Rule 21 of Rules of 1988, writ petition would not be maintainable and petitioner is liable to be relegated to equally efficacious statutory remedy. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for respondents 3&4 has contended that in view of statutory remedy of appeal provided under Rule 21 of Rules of 1988, writ petition would not be maintainable and petitioner is liable to be relegated to equally efficacious statutory remedy. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 6. It is now settled that writ petition against cooperative societies registered under J&K Cooperative Societies Act 1989 is not maintainable as the cooperative societies registered under the aforesaid Act, are neither State nor instrumentalities of State within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, nor do they perform any duties having public element. This was so held way back in the year 1973 in Abdul Majid Dar v. G.M.Waiz, Administrator, Kashmir Peoples Co-operative Service Ltd. reported in JK Law Reporter (1973) Vol. IV Page 809. Since petitioner in this petition is not seeking enforcement of any byelaws of the societies, as such, objection taken by respondents that petition would not be maintainable, may not succeed. Petitioner, as is apparent from the pleadings, is seeking writ of certiorari for quashing impugned order of his dismissal on the ground that same has been passed by respondent no.4 in violation of statutory rules, i.e. J&K Cooperative Societies Service Rules, 1988, more particularly Rule 19. Since the whole case of petitioner is based on violation of statutory rules, as such, writ petition insofar as it pertains to strict enforcement of statutory rules is concerned, is held to be maintainable. 7. Now this brings me to another objection taken by respondents 3&4, which was strenuously argued by Mr Kakar. This pertains to availability of efficacious alternate remedy in terms of Rule 21 of Rules of 1988. Rule 21 of Rules of 1988, reads thus: “21. Appeals. — An appeal against an order imposing a penalty shall lie to the Divisional Joint Registrar/Registrar Cooperative Societies within 30 days from the date of passing of the order appealed against.” 8. From the scheme of Rules of 1988, it is abundantly clear that a complete mechanism has been provided for initiation and completion of disciplinary proceedings as also remedy provided in case a penalty as envisaged under Rule 19 of Rules of 1988, is imposed on delinquent employee by competent authority. Rule 21, reproduced above, is quite categoric and provides an appeal against the order, imposing penalty before Divisional Joint Registrar/Registrar Cooperative Societies. Rule 21, reproduced above, is quite categoric and provides an appeal against the order, imposing penalty before Divisional Joint Registrar/Registrar Cooperative Societies. The appeal is required to be filed within thirty days from the date of passing of the order of penalty. Admittedly, petitioner rushed to this Court without availing of aforesaid statutory alternate remedy of appeal. Learned counsel for petitioner could not point out any exceptional circumstances to persuade this Court to entertain this writ petition despite there being alternate remedy available to petitioner under the Statute. Since challenge to order impugned is made primarily on the ground that inquiry as envisaged under Rule 19 of Rules of 1988, has not been properly held and therefore, order impugned is vitiated, therefore, petitioner should have been well advised to seek remedy by way of an appeal, which he was supposed to file before Registrar Cooperative Societies within 30 days from the date of passing of order. As stated above, petitioner has not indicated any reason for bypassing alternate remedy and filing this writ petition against order impugned. It is trite law that availability of alternate remedy does not ipso facto bar jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but this Court in appropriate case may in its discretion relegate the party to alternate remedy particularly when the said remedy is equally efficacious and prescribed by Statute. 9. While expressing the aforesaid view, I am conscious that the powers conferred upon this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose, are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsions, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why this Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass orders thereon, ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing appeal provided for by the legislation/statute. Here in the present case the Statute is J&K Cooperative Societies Service Rules, 1988, which contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. Therefore, this Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion in entertaining such matters. Of course, in a particular case, if the petitioner is able to show that his case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad AIR 1969 SC 556 , Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1 , and Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and others (2003) 2 SCC 107 , and some other judgments, then this Court may, after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest, pass appropriate orders. However, in the present case, the petitioner has not been able to bring his case within any of the exceptions as provided in aforesaid decisions. 10. In view of what is stated above, writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is left free to avail of alternate remedy as provided under Rule 21 of J&K Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988. It is also made clear that in case petitioner files the appeal against order impugned, the period spent by him in this Court shall be deducted/set off while calculating period of limitation prescribed for filing of appeal.