JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the Court that respondents No.2 to 7 stand served. Mr. Dev Raj, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.5 to 7 and on his instructions, Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned Senior Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of said respondents. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. As none has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 despite service, said respondents are ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. Heard. There is a legal controversy involved in the present writ petition, for the adjudication thereof, this Court is of the considered view that response of respondents No.5 to 7 is not required and otherwise also, learned Senior Counsel appearing for said respondents has ably assisted the Court in the adjudication of the petition, without insisting to file response. 2. Facts necessary for the decision of the present petition are that the petitioner was elected as a member of the Koyla Bhagwati Gram Seva Sahkari Sabha Samiti, Rajgarh, Village Kehad, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P. on 24.04.2018. Thereafter, in terms of the averments made in the petition, on 27.04.2018, he was unanimously nominated as Pradhan/President of the Society and he assumed the office as such. It is the contention of the petitioner that as he noted certain irregularities and illegalities being committed in the Society, which is a Society registered under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Co­operative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1968 Act’), he initiated action and result thereof was that he was removed from the office of Pradhan/President in terms of a No Confidence Motion, passed by the Managing Committee of the Society, dated 17.09.2018, copy whereof is appended alongwith Annexure P­4. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner after issuance of legal notice etc., filed a petition under Section 72 of the Himachal Pradesh Co­operative Societies Act, 1968, which was decided against the petitioner in terms of order dated 28.10.2021, passed by Joint Registrar, Co­operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P­9. This order was challenged by way of an appeal filed under Section 93 of the Himachal Pradesh Co­operative Societies Act,1968 by the petitioner, which appeal was dismissed by learned Appellate Authority vide Annexure P­10, dated 27.04.2022. This order was challenged by way of an appeal filed under Section 93 of the Himachal Pradesh Co­operative Societies Act,1968 by the petitioner, which appeal was dismissed by learned Appellate Authority vide Annexure P­10, dated 27.04.2022. This order was assailed by the petitioner by was of CWP No.3189 of 2022, before this Court in terms of judgment dated 23.05.2022, Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to allow the petition and set aside the order passed by learned Appellate Authority, on the ground that the order was a non­speaking order. Thereafter, again the appeal stands decided by learned Appellate Authority and the same has against been dismissed in terms of Annexure P­12, dated 25.08.2022. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Deputy Advocate General and learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.5 to 7. I have also carefully gone through the documents which have been placed on record. 5. The moot issue involved in this petition is as to whether the petitioner who was nominated as Pradhan/President of the Co­operative Society, could have been removed by way of a No Confidence Motion by the Managing Committee of the Society or not? 6. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to necessary statutory provisions which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present writ petition. Chapter­III of the 1968 Act provides for members of the Co­operative Societies and their rights and liabilities. This Chapter provides as to who all become members of the Co­operative Society and Chapter­IV of the 1968 Act provides for management of the Co­operative Society. Section 31 thereof provides that the final authority in a Co­operative Society shall vest in the General Body of the members in a general meeting, but shall not have the power to conduct election of the Managing Committee and to amend the bye­laws. Section 31 thereof provides that the final authority in a Co­operative Society shall vest in the General Body of the members in a general meeting, but shall not have the power to conduct election of the Managing Committee and to amend the bye­laws. The proviso to this Section provides that where the by­laws of the Co­operative Society provide for the constitution of a smaller body consisting of delegates of the Society elected or selected in accordance with such by­laws, the smaller body shall exercise such powers of the General Body as may be prescribed or as may be specified in the by­laws of the Society, with a further proviso that nothing in this Section shall affect any power conferred on a Committee or any officer of a Co­operative Society by the rules or the by­laws. Rule 43 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971, inter alia, provides for removal, expulsion etc. of the Chairman, Committee­members and other elected officers. 7. Herein, the appeal that was filed by the petitioner was against his being removed from the office of the President on the basis of a No Confidence Motion passed by the Managing Committee of the Society. A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P­12) demonstrates that learned Appellate Authority upheld the order passed in the petition filed under Section 72 of the Act by the authority concerned, thus upholding the order of removal of the petitioner by way of No Confidence Motion by the Managing Committee by observing that since the President of the Society, i.e. the petitioner was elected amongst the members of the Managing Committee, then in accordance with sub­rule (3) of Rule 43 of the Himachal Pradesh Co­operative Societies Act, the Managing Committee is competent to remove any officer of the Society, appointed by the Managing Committee, subject to the approval of the Registrar where voting is to be held in accordance with Rule 45 of the above said Rules. 8. 8. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by learned Appellate Authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law as both, learned Appellate Authority as well as Joint Registrar, Co­operative Society, who decided the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 72 of the Act, have completely misread the provisions of Section 2(11) of the Himachal Pradesh Co­operative Societies Act, 1968, as well as Rule 43 (3) of the Himachal Pradesh Co­operative Societies Rules, 1971, as far as their applicability qua facts of the present case are concerned. Rule 43 of the 1971 Rules provides as under:­ “43. Removal, expulsion etc. of the Chairman, Committee-members and other elected officers ­ 1 ”(1) The elected committee members of a society under clause (a) of sub­rule (1) of rule 38 may be removed from the office by a resolution of general meeting specially convened for the purpose.” (2) The managing committee, with the prior approval of the Registrar, may remove any committee member who fails to attend four consecutive meetings of the committee without previous permission of the Chairman obtained by him in writing. (3) Unless otherwise provided in the bye­laws, or in the terms of his appointment, and subject to the provisions of section 72 of the Act, any officer of the society appointed by the managing committee may be removed from his office by the managing committee, subject to the approval of the Registrar.” 9. Section 2 (11) of the Co­operative Societies Act defines ‘Officer’ to be Pradhan/Vice President, Chairman, Vice Chairman etc. including any other person empowered under the Rules and the by­laws to give directions in regard to business of a Co­operative Society. However, when it comes to sub­rule (3) of Rule 43 of the 1971 Rules, the same provides that unless otherwise provided in the by­laws of the Society, or in the terms of his appointment, and subject to the provisions of Section 72 of the Act, any ‘Officer’ of the Society appointed by the Managing Committee may be removed from his office by the Managing Committee, subject to approval of the Registrar. 10. 10. Both the authorities erred in not appreciating that the ‘Officer’ contemplated under sub­rule (3) of Rule 43, has to be someone, who has “appointed as such by the Managing Committee” and the same cannot be confused with the definition of officer, as is provided in Section 2(11) of the Co­operative Societies Act, 1968. The power vested in the Managing Committee under sub­ rule (3) of Rule 43 is to remove an officer of the Society from his office who has been appointed by the Managing Committee. The definition of the word ‘Officer’ as it finds mentioned in Section 2 (11) of the 1968 Act has a wider ambit as compared to the word ‘Officer’ which finds mentioned in Rule 43 of the 1971 Rules. 11. The petitioner was not appointed by the Managing Committee as the Pradhan/President of the Society, because even from the impugned orders, it is apparent that he was nominated as such by the Managing Committee. There is a difference between ‘nomination’ and ‘appointment’. Not only this, sub­rule (3) of Rule 43 itself clearly stipulates that the power vested in the Managing Committee is relatable vis­a­vis an officer appointed by the Society, but subject to the provisions of the by­laws and the terms of his appointment. The nomination of the petitioner as Pradhan/President of the Society cannot be confused by the power of appointment which is conferred with the Managing Committee vis­a­vis appointment of an officer which appointment but natural has to be on such terms as may be expressly reduced in writing. Not only this, the petitioner was nominated as President of the Society, because he happened to be an elected member of the Committee. 12. Now, a perusal of sub­rule (1) of Rule 43 demonstrates that it is clearly mentioned there that an elected Committee Member of a Society under Clause (a) of sub­rule (1) of Rule 38, may be removed from the office by a resolution of general meeting, specially convened for that purpose. Sub­rule (2) similarly provides that the Managing Committee, with the prior approval of the Registrar, may remove any Committee Member who fails to attend four consecutive meetings of the Committed without previous permission of the Chairman obtained by him in writing. But these provisions also do not confer any unilateral power upon the Managing Committee to remove Pradhan/President. 13. Sub­rule (2) similarly provides that the Managing Committee, with the prior approval of the Registrar, may remove any Committee Member who fails to attend four consecutive meetings of the Committed without previous permission of the Chairman obtained by him in writing. But these provisions also do not confer any unilateral power upon the Managing Committee to remove Pradhan/President. 13. Now, a perusal of Rule 38 (1) (a) demonstrates that the same provides that the Managing Committee of a Co­operative Society shall be, inter alia, constituted by election from amongst the members of the Society. The provision of sub­rule (1) of Rule 43 thus has to be read harmoniously with the provisions of Rule 38 (1) (a). Therefore, the only inference which can be drawn is that an elected Committee member, may be a Chairman, or a President, or a Pradhan, cannot be removed from the office except by a resolution of the general meeting specially convened for that purpose. 14. In this case, removal of the petitioner from the office was not by way of a resolution of the general meeting specially convened for that purpose, but it was done by way of a No Confidence Motion passed by the Managing Committee unilaterally, vis­a­vis which there was no statutory mandate with the Managing Committee. In fact, Rule 44 of the 1971 Rule further provides that no removal in terms of Rule 43 (1) can be done without following the procedure prescribed therein, which also admittedly was not followed while passing the impugned resolution against the petitioner. 15. Therefore, from the above discussion, it is apparent that not only the removal of the petitioner from the office of Pradhan/President in terms of a No Confidence Motion passed by the Managing Committee unilaterally was bad in law, but even the adjudication upon the petitioner filed under Section 72 of the Cooperative Societies Act and appeal filed under Section 93 thereof, are bad in law. In fact, the very language of Section 2 (11) as also Rule 43 (3) demonstrates that the words “Officer” has a wider connotation as far as Section 2(11) is concerned, but when it comes to reading down Rule 43 (3) is concerned, it has to be read strictly in terms of what the legislature meant it to be on the basis of the language used therein. 16. 16. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the order passed by learned Appellate Authority in Appeal No.23 of 2021, decided on 25.08.2022 (Annexure P­12) is quashed and set aside. As a natural corollary thereof, the order passed by Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, dated 28.10.2021 (Annexure P­9), as also the resolution passed by the Managing Committee dated 17.09.2018, copy whereof is appended with the petition is Annexure P­4 are held to be bad in law and are declared as non est. 17. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.