ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation representing the 1st respondent and Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 2. One Mr. Medapati Satyanarayana Reddy, Secretary of the 2nd respondent-Society filed the present Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the resolution of the 2nd respondent dated 04.03.2020 in placing him under suspension, he filed Writ Petition No. 12735 of 2021. While the said Writ Petition was pending consideration, the 2nd respondent-Society, filed a counter-affidavit, inter-alia, stating that the petitioner was dismissed from service pursuant to a resolution dated 09.04.2020 passed by the Person In-charge Committee in the General Body Meeting. In such circumstances, he filed W.P. No. 25839 of 2021, challenging the said resolution dated 09.04.2020. 3. Though several contentions were raised in Writ Petition No. 12735 of 2021, in view of the subsequent developments after filing of Writ Petition No. 12735 of 2021 i.e., dismissal of petitioner which is subject matter of challenge in W.P. No. 25839 of 2021, this Court deems it not necessary to go into the issues raised in W.P. No. 12735 of 2021. 4. Mr. K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the resolution dated 09.04.2020 dismissing the petitioner from service which is impugned in the W.P. No. 25839 of 2021 is wholly unsustainable. He submits that the said resolution was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to the Bye Laws/service conditions governing the employees of the 2nd respondent-Society, apart from being without jurisdiction. He submits that the 2nd respondent-Society came up with the version of dismissal of the petitioner, for the first time, while filing a counter-affidavit in W.P. No. 12735 of 2021 after taking considerable time for filing the same. He submits that the said resolution dated 09.04.2020 was neither served nor communicated to the petitioner, at any point of time and the petitioner came to know about the same on receipt of the counter, to which it was annexed. While contending that though the impugned resolution mentions issuance of show cause notice and that the petitioner did not submit his explanation to the said notice, no details as to when the show cause notice was issued and as to when the same was served on the petitioner were divulged. While contending that though the impugned resolution mentions issuance of show cause notice and that the petitioner did not submit his explanation to the said notice, no details as to when the show cause notice was issued and as to when the same was served on the petitioner were divulged. He further submits that dismissal from service results in serious consequences and in such circumstances, the 2nd and 3rd respondents were required to give adequate opportunity to the petitioner, by strictly adhering to the Bye-Laws of the 2nd respondent-Society. While drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant Bye-Laws, in particular, to Bye-Law No. 7 which deals with the procedure for disciplinary action, the learned counsel would submit that the procedure as contemplated under the said Bye-Law, has not been complied with and therefore the impugned resolution is liable to be set aside on that ground. The learned counsel further submits that as per the Bye-Laws, removal/dismissal from service is a major punishment and in respect of the Secretary of a Society, it can be imposed by Managing Committee, in consultation with the District Level Committee. He submits that in the present case, no such consultation as contemplated under Bye-Laws was made and in such circumstances, the impugned resolution dismissing the petitioner as Secretary of the 2nd respondent- Society is vitiated. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks relief as sought for, by allowing the Writ Petition as prayed for. 5. Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents, on the basis of averments made in the counter-affidavit submits that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of funds and an order of Surcharge under Section 60 (1) of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act was passed against him on 22.02.2020. She submits that the case of the petitioner that the resolution impugned in the Writ Petition was passed without issuance of any notice/show-cause notice is not true or correct. While drawing the attention of this Court to the material filed along with the counter-affidavit, the learned counsel would urge that, in fact, a show-cause notice dated 18.03.2020 was issued to the petitioner and the same was received by him. Despite the same, no explanation was submitted by the petitioner and in those circumstances, the present Person In-charge Committee passed the resolution dated 09.04.2020, impugned in the Writ Petition. Despite the same, no explanation was submitted by the petitioner and in those circumstances, the present Person In-charge Committee passed the resolution dated 09.04.2020, impugned in the Writ Petition. She also submits that, in fact, a 3rd party affidavit was filed by the In-charge Secretary of the 2nd respondent-Society, categorically asserting service of show-cause notice dated 18.03.2020 on the petitioner, by hand. The learned counsel further submits that the bye-laws have no statutory force as held by the Hon’ble Full Bench in a case reported in AIR 1990 A.P. 171 . However, to the specific query as to whether any material is placed before this Court regarding consultation with the District Level Committee with reference to dismissal of the petitioner, the learned counsel fairly submitted that no consultation was made. 6. On considering the rival contentions, the issue that falls for consideration by this Court is as to whether the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition is liable to be set aside, if so, on what grounds? 7. It is the specific case of the petitioner that no show-cause notice was issued prior to passing of the impugned resolution dismissing the petitioner from service. However, the same was contradicted by the 2nd and 3rd respondents by placing material on record to the effect that a show-cause notice, in fact, was served on the petitioner. They have also filed a 3rd party affidavit to the said effect. In the reply affidavit, it is pleaded that the signature of the petitioner is forged. Thus, there is a dispute with regard to service of notice and this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not go into adjudication of disputed questions of Fact. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to set aside the order of dismissal only on the short ground that there is no consultation by the Managing Committee (PIC) with the District Level Committee, with regard to dismissal of the petitioner from service, as contemplated under bye-laws. 8. Accordingly, the impugned resolution is set aside. It is made clear that this Order would not preclude the 2nd and 3rd respondents to take appropriate action in terms of the Bye- Laws of the 2nd respondent-Society. Writ Petition No. 12735 of 2021 is closed and Writ Petition No. 25839 of 2021 is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. 9. It is made clear that this Order would not preclude the 2nd and 3rd respondents to take appropriate action in terms of the Bye- Laws of the 2nd respondent-Society. Writ Petition No. 12735 of 2021 is closed and Writ Petition No. 25839 of 2021 is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. 9. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.