ORDER : PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceeding of the fourth respondent dated 23.08.2000 in Na.Ka. 26843/99-2000 D2 and consequential proceedings of the second respondent dated 03.10.2012 in Na.Ka. 52978/2012 Sa.Pa, quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all back wages, continuity of service and other benefits. Heard Mr.C.Munusamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs.C.Sangamithirai, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents and Mr.M.R.Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. There is no appearance on behalf of the third respondent. 2. Pending the Writ Petition, the original petitioner, namely Mr. N.P. Palaniswamy, expired and his legal heirs have been brought on record. 3. The late employee Mr. N.P. Palaniswamy, while serving as Cashier-cum- Assistant, was levelled with two charges on 16.03.2000 and 31.03.2000, alleging that there was a shortage of Rs.1,000/- and that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs.4,700/- on another occasion. Based on the levelled charges, an enquiry is said to have been conducted and the charges were held proved. Accordingly, the fourth respondent herein, who is the Managing Director of the Cooperative Bank, had dismissed the late employee from service on 23.08.2000. Originally, this order of dismissal was challenged in a revision before the second respondent herein, which was confirmed. When the matter was further challenged before this Court in W.P.No.10798 of 2004, the issue was remitted back to the Revisional Authority, by an order dated 29.03.2012. It is in this background, the present impugned order dated 03.10.2012 came to be passed under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. 4. One of the main grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Managing Director is not the Competent Authority to impose the punishment of dismissal from service, for which purpose, he placed reliance on Bylaw 11(a) of the Special Bylaws relating to the service conditions of the employees of the respondent Cooperative Bank. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent Bank submitted that the dismissal order was approved by the Board of Management on 14.11.2000 and therefore, the order itself was in accordance with the Special Bylaws. 6. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent Bank submitted that the dismissal order was approved by the Board of Management on 14.11.2000 and therefore, the order itself was in accordance with the Special Bylaws. 6. The service conditions of the employees of the respondent Bank are governed by the Special Bylaws of the Periyar Central Co-operative Bank Limited. Bylaw 11(a) therein reads as follows:- "11(a) Any member of the establishment may for good and sufficient cause, be punished in one or other of the following ways at the discretion of the authority competent to award. The punishment as shown in the table below Rank of the employee Authority competent to Censure or fine With hold increment Or Reduce Dismiss Chief Executive Chairman Chairman Chairman Board of Management Secretary Chief Executive Chief Executive Chairman Board of Management Executive Officer, Assistant Secretary, Assistant Executive Officer, Manager, Assistant Manager, Senior Assistant, Junior Assistant Secretary Secretary Chairman Board of Management Field Manager Senior Supervisor Junior Supervisor Executive Officer Executive Officer Chairman Board of Management All other employees Executive Officer/Secretary Executive Officer/Secretary Chief Executive Chairman" 7. The late employee was in the cadre of Assistant/Cashier. As per the aforesaid Bylaw, it is the Board of Management that is authorized to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. Admittedly, no such order of dismissal was passed by the Board of Management, but it was the Managing Director who had dismissed the late employee from service. 8. The only justification, which the learned counsel for the fourth respondent Bank attempted to make, is that that the dismissal order of the Managing Director was confirmed later by the Board on 14.11.2000. Such a procedure is not in confirmity with the Special Bylaw 11(a). When the By laws specifically authorize the Board of Management to pass an order of dismissal, ratification of the dismissal order passed by the Managing Director cannot be said to be in confirmity with the Bylaw. Thus, the Managing Director does not have such an authority and the confirmation also will have no effect nor can be said that it was in accordance with the Special Bylaws. Consequently, the revisional order passed by the second respondent also cannot be sustained. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 23.08.2000 passed by the fourth respondent and the consequential order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the second respondent, are quashed. Consequently, the revisional order passed by the second respondent also cannot be sustained. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 23.08.2000 passed by the fourth respondent and the consequential order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the second respondent, are quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the third and fourth respondents herein to pass appropriate orders to disburse all the DCRG and other pensionary benefits, if any, to the legal heirs of late Mr.N.P.Palaniswamy, who are the petitioners 2 to 4 herein, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.