JUDGMENT : S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J. The President of the 2nd respondent-Society has come up in this appeal seeking to set aside the order dated 13.12.2017 in W.P. No.109565 of 2017 (CSRES) so far as it pertains to reinstating the 6th respondent herein as the Chief Executive officer of the 2nd respondent. 2. Admittedly, the appellant is the President of the 2nd respondent-Society and, according to him, the 6th respondent and another person by name Mariswamy, a clerk in the 2nd respondent-society, joined together in misappropriating the sale proceeds of the organic manure which was belonging to the 2nd respondent-Society. In this behalf, an enquiry was conducted under Section 65 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act wherein report was submitted on 31.03.2015 as could be seen at Reference No.3 in the order of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 15.05.2015 in proceedings No.SaNi.22:Vi7:Kalam.65:68:0:2015-16. Wherein the 4th respondent ARCS of Ballary Sub-Division, held that the 6th respondent herein and as well as Mariswamy have misappropriated the sale proceeds of organic manure in the society, and with reference to that steps should be taken for recovery of amount and also initiation of enquiry proceedings against these two persons. 3. It is stated that the said order of ARCS dated 15.05.2015, vide Annexure-B, was subject matter of challenge before the 3rd respondent DRCS in Appeal No.1/2015 which came to be allowed by order dated 25.4.2017, wherein the appeal filed by 6th respondent herein in challenge to the finding of ARCS was confirmed in directing conducting of an enquiry and also ordering for recovery of money from both 6th respondent and Mariswamy. However it is stated that the 3rd respondent committed grave error in passing an order directing reinstatement of 6th respondent as CEO of 2nd respondent society even though there was no prayer to that effect in Appeal No.1/2015-16 filed before the 3rd respondent. 4. It is this order which was challenged by the appellant herein before the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.109565/2017. 4. It is this order which was challenged by the appellant herein before the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.109565/2017. When the said writ petition was taken up for consideration, there were two other writ petitions pertaining to very same society, which were in W.P.No.104931/2017 which was filed by the appellant himself in challenge to notice dated 31.5.2017 for holding election to the post of President which was held by the petitioner at that point of time and another writ petition is in W.P.No.21046/2017 which was also filed by the appellant herein which was in challenge to the notice dated 2.5.2017 issued by the election officer of 2nd respondent for holding ‘no confidence motion’ against the appellant herein. All these three writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by learned single Judge by common order dated 23.12.2017 wherein the learned single Judge would order as under: “34. In the result, all these Writ Petitions are allowed accordingly. The petitioner as well as the 6th respondent in Writ Petition No.109565/2017 are restored to their status quo anté the impugned notice of meeting of no confidence meeting of election of new President and the order of termination of the 6th respondent CEO dated 29.09.2015. 35. The Society, Board as well as the petitioner are at liberty to proceed with the matter as per the order of the ARCS dated 15th May 2015 and for bringing no confidence motion, if any, in accordance with law and the observations made in these writ petitions.” 5. This order of learned single Judge is challenged by the appellant herein so far as it pertains to W.P.No.109565/2017 which is with reference to reinstatement of 6th respondent in the post in which he was earlier to his removal. So far as other two orders are concerned, though they are against the petitioner, he is silent about them, may be for the reason that even after the said order was passed on 13.12.2017, till today neither the ‘no confidence motion’ against the appellant herein is moved by the society, nor the election is conducted to the post of President. 6. Be that as it may, now this Court is confined itself to challenge to the order in W.P.No.109565/2017 which is in reinstating the 6th respondent to the post of CEO pursuant to the said order. 6. Be that as it may, now this Court is confined itself to challenge to the order in W.P.No.109565/2017 which is in reinstating the 6th respondent to the post of CEO pursuant to the said order. When this appeal is taken up for consideration, learned counsel appearing for contesting 6th respondent would oppose this appeal on various grounds. One of that is, the appellant herein being President of the 2nd respondent himself is responsible for the order of the learned single Judge not being implemented in conducting an enquiry and also holding ‘no confidence motion’ against him being stalled to his benefit. According to him, the order of the learned single Judge would observe that ‘no confidence motion’ should be taken up immediately after the said order was passed and simultaneously enquiry is also should against the 6th respondent, both should be in accordance with law. 7. However he would state that so far as the President is concerned, he is inclined to see that the order of the learned single Judge is implemented so far as holding an enquiry against the 6th respondent but not in conducting ‘no confidence motion’ against him as it could be detrimental to his interest and it is because of this the order is not implemented by the board. Therefore, he would submit that if the order of the learned single Judge is required to be implemented, it has to be implemented in its totality as it was passed on all three writ petitions, which is supported by the leaned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1, 3 and 4. So far as 2nd respondent society is concerned, there is no representation. 8. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and as well as learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent State, 2nd and 3rd respondents, namely DRCS and ARCS respectively and also the learned counsel appearing for contesting 6th respondent who is presently working as Chief Executive Officer of 2nd respondent society. 9. 8. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and as well as learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent State, 2nd and 3rd respondents, namely DRCS and ARCS respectively and also the learned counsel appearing for contesting 6th respondent who is presently working as Chief Executive Officer of 2nd respondent society. 9. In the instant matter what is seen is that there is large scale misappropriation in 2nd respondent society which was subject matter of enquiry under section 65 where the report which is submitted by the auditors would indicate that the 6th respondent herein and as well as Mariswamy have indulged in misappropriating the sale proceeds of organic manure, which is stated to be to the tune of Rs.18,44,230/-as on 2015. Admittedly the report of the auditor in identifying the 6th respondent and Mariswamy as the persons who have misappropriated sale proceeds is not challenged. They have accepted the same. 10. However, what was challenged by 6th respondent is keeping him under suspension pursuant to order of 4th respondent ARCS dated 15.5.2015 in filing an appeal before the 3rd respondent DRCS in Appeal No.1/2015-16 where the prayer of the 6th respondent being in challenge to the order of recovery of the misappropriated amount. In that, without there being a prayer by 6th respondent, he is ordered to be reinstated which is challenged by the appellant herein. While doing so, he also challenged the notice which was issued calling for ‘no confidence motion’ against him and also to hold election to the post of President. 11. All the three petitions were taken up together and disposed of by the learned single Judge, wherein the learned single Judge has observed that the enquiry as ordered by ARCS against the 6th respondent and Mariswamy should go on as ordered by ARCS in its order dated 15.5.2015. That the said enquiry shall be conducted in accordance with law by the disciplinary authority to be appointed by the managing committee of 2nd respondent society. It is also observed that the 2nd respondent society may call for meeting to hold ‘no confidence motion’ against the appellant who was petitioner before the learned single Judge. 12. Admittedly the order of the learned single Judge is dated 13.12.2017. It is also observed that the 2nd respondent society may call for meeting to hold ‘no confidence motion’ against the appellant who was petitioner before the learned single Judge. 12. Admittedly the order of the learned single Judge is dated 13.12.2017. Though the said order is passed nearly two years before this date, the same is not implemented for the reasons best known to the 2nd respondent society which is again headed by the appellant. With this, what is clearly seen is, while the appellant herein is trying to pursue enquiry against the 6th respondent and Mariswamy, he is trying to protect himself from ‘no confidence motion’ to be initiated by the board which cannot be permitted. 13. At the same time, when this matter had come up on earlier occasion this Court had observed that if the enquiry is required to be initiated against the 6th respondent he cannot be holding the office of Chief Executive Officer in as much as the Chief Executive Officer being custodian of all the documents would definitely come in the way of conducting enquiry in a fair and proper manner. Therefore the aforesaid order of reinstatement of 6th respondent to the post of Chief Executive Officer was stayed by its order dated 22.8.2019, which is said to have been implemented. 14. Therefore, at this juncture this Court would observe that the appeal itself is required to be disposed of with a direction to the managing committee of 2nd respondent society to initiate proceedings for holding ‘no confidence motion’ against the President at the first instance and thereafter the reconstituted committee where it includes existing President or President to be elected in the said ‘no confidence motion’ should immediately initiate enquiry against 6th respondent and Mariswamy by appointing an enquiry officer. 15. These things should be done on time bound basis. Therefore this Court would observe that ‘no confidence motion’ shall be considered within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. To consider the same, even if any code of conduct is declared by the election authority, the same would not come in the way of implementing the order of this Court with reference to holding ‘no confidence motion’ against the President of the 2nd respondent, which should be done thereafter. 16. To consider the same, even if any code of conduct is declared by the election authority, the same would not come in the way of implementing the order of this Court with reference to holding ‘no confidence motion’ against the President of the 2nd respondent, which should be done thereafter. 16. The reconstituted committee with present President holding the board or any other new person appointed to that post shall take a decision to appoint an enquiry officer to go into the charges leveled against the 6th respondent and Mariswamy and order for conducting an enquiry which shall be done within 30 days from the date of ‘no confidence motion’ order reaches finality. 17. Thereafter the enquiry which is ordered to be initiated should be completed within 90 days from that date and the report of the same should be placed before the board to take appropriate decision in that behalf. With such observation, this writ appeal is disposed of. 18. It is needless to say that till such time the entire process is completed, the 6th respondent shall not be reinstated to the post of CEO and during the said period he would be entitled to seek subsistence allowance as provided under law.