ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 16.12.2022 (Annex.2) whereby the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Manager, by observing that there were serious complaints against him, he has been removed from the post. 2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the Society appointed the petitioner based on the resolution dated 29.07.2019, pursuant to which the petitioner was performing his duties and suddenly without issuing any notice, by order dated 16.12.2022 (Annex.2), he has been removed by making allegations, without providing any copy of the complaint and/or providing opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the order impugned is bad in law. 3. Counsel for the petitioner made submissions that under izkFkfed d`f"k _.knk=h lgdkjh lfefr;k¡@o`gr d`f"k cgqmn~ns'kh; lgdkjh lfefr;ksa ds deZpkfj;ksa dh HkrhZ] p;u izfØ;k ,oa lsok fu;e&2022 ('Rules of 2022'), although procedure has been provided for taking disciplinary action against an employee, however, none of the procedure as prescribed under Rule 41 of the Rules of 2022 has been followed by the respondents and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. A reply to writ petition has been filed by the respondents, inter-alia, placing on record certain complaints as Annex.R/2/1 and Annex.R/2/2 and submissions have been made that as the complaints against the petitioner were too serious and he was working as a temporary employee, his services have been put to an end by order impugned. Alongwith reply, document (Annex.R/2/3) has also been produced, which is an order passed by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Udaipur Division, Udaipur wherein, an enquiry officer was appointed on 19.12.2022 to enquire into the complaints against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is in violation of the provisions of Rules of 2022 and that as the removal is based on complaints, the same could not have taken place without affording him opportunity of hearing. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents defended the order impugned with the submissions that the conduct of the petitioner was such that he could not be retained in the services of the respondent Society and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. A bare perusal of the order impugned (Annex.2) would reveal that by observing that in terms of resolution of the Board dated 15.12.2022 on account of serious complaints against the petitioner he has been removed from the post. Once the removal is based on certain complaints, apparently the action could only be taken after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which admittedly in the case at hand has not been provided to the petitioner and the procedure as prescribed under Rule 41 of the Rules of 2022 has not been followed. 9. A perusal of document (Annex.R/2/3) reveals that though enquiry officer was appointed on the Registrar being approached by the Society, the Society without waiting for the order, which was passed on 19.12.2022, passed the order on 15.12.2022 removing the petitioner, which action of the respondent Society is clearly highhanded, against the principles of natural justice and against the Rules. 10. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order impugned dated 16.12.2022 (Annex.2) passed by the Society is quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. However, the enquiry against the petitioner may be conducted in terms of directions given by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 19.12.2022.