Order : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The matter comes upon third Stay Application as filed on behalf of the petitioner. However, with the consent of both the counsels, the matter has been heard finally. 2. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 15.06.2015 (Annexure-14) passed by the Executive Officer of the respondent Bank whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that order impugned has been passed in terms of Rule 39(1) of Primary Agricultural Co- operative Credit Societies/Large Multipurpose Cooperative Societies Employees’ Selection, Appointment and Service Conditions, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2008’) whereas the power to pass an order in terms of Rule 39(1) of the Rules of 2008 can be exercised by the Executive Officer of the Bank only in special circumstances as defined in the said provision. Counsel submits that none of the special circumstances as defined in Rule 39(2) of the Rules of 2008 was applicable in the present matter and hence, the Executive Officer could not have exercised the power in terms of Rule 39(1) of the Rules of 2008. 4. Counsel further submits that as per Rule 39(1) of the Rules of 2008, it is either the Member Secretary or the District Level Advisory and the Inquiry Committee which is empowered to suspend the Manager/Assistant Manager of a Society and not the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer is only empowered to direct for suspension but cannot himself pass an order of suspension. The order impugned therefore, being contrary to Rule 39(1) of the Rules of 2008 deserves to be quashed. 5. So far as the special circumstances as defined under Rule 39(2) of the Rules of 2008 is concerned, Counsel submits that the only allegation against the petitioner who was working as an Assistant Manager with the Society was that he did not disburse the agricultural loan to the members of the Society. Firstly, the same does not fall under any of the grounds defined under Rule 39(2) of the Rules of 2008. Secondly, there was no resolution of the Society to disburse the loan to the alleged members of the Society and in absence of any such resolution, the petitioner was not even authorized to disburse the loan. Therefore, the petitioner could not have been held guilty for the charge as levelled against him. 6. Secondly, there was no resolution of the Society to disburse the loan to the alleged members of the Society and in absence of any such resolution, the petitioner was not even authorized to disburse the loan. Therefore, the petitioner could not have been held guilty for the charge as levelled against him. 6. Counsel lastly submits that it is evident on record that the Society specifically resolved that the list of the applicants as forwarded by the Bank comprised of those people who were not even primary members of the Society. Further, maximum of them had not even applied for any loan. Furthermore, the names of even such persons were added in the said list, who had either expired or did not even reside in the village. To conclude, the complaint as filed and the list of applicants as forwarded by the Bank was a complete forged one. Despite the said resolution being passed by the Society and been forwarded to the Advisory/Inquiry Committee, the same was not even taken into consideration and the petitioner was put to suspension de hors the Rules. 7. Per contra Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that it d was a clear case of misconduct in terms of Rule 35( )(3) and (13) of the Rules of 2008 and hence, action in terms of Rule 39(1) of the Rules of 2008 was rightly taken against the petitioner. 8. So far as the fact of there being no resolution passed by the Society to disburse the loan to the alleged applicants is concerned, Counsel is not in a position to refute the said fact. He however submits that the petitioner was under a duty to act in accordance with law and disburse the loan to the applicants. 9. Heard the counsels. Perused the record. 10. Rule 39(1) and (2) of Rules of 2008 provides as under:- 11. A bare perusal of the above provision reflects that it is only in the special circumstances as defined in the above provision that the Executive Officer of the Bank is empowered to direct for the suspension of Manager/Assistant Manager of the concerned Society. If no action is taken by the Executive of the Managing Society within a period of fifteen days, the Member Secretary or the District Level Advisory and Inquiry Committee can suspend the incumbent and make alternative arrangements. If no action is taken by the Executive of the Managing Society within a period of fifteen days, the Member Secretary or the District Level Advisory and Inquiry Committee can suspend the incumbent and make alternative arrangements. The special circumstances as defined in the above provision provides for only three circumstances qua misconduct of a Manager/Assistant Manager. This Court is of the clear opinion that the charge of non- disbursement of loan to the applicants as levelled against the petitioner does not fall within any of the said three special circumstances. 12. So far as specific condition no.3 is concerned, the same would definitely not apply to the present matter as that deals with the powers of Registrar of a Cooperative Society. Herein, the order has been passed by the Executive Officer of the Bank and hence, the said circumstance does not even require to be considered. 13. So far as misconduct in terms of Rule 35 of Rules of 2008 is concerned, Rule 39(1) does not prescribe for any action for such misconduct. As is evident, Rule 36 of the Rules provides for disciplinary proceedings qua such misconduct and also for the punishment for any such misconduct. But by any means, Rule 39(1) of the Rules of 2008 does not govern any of the misconduct as defined under Rule 35 of the Rules of 2008. 14. As per the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner has been suspended because of the misconduct in terms of Rule 35 of the Rules of 2008. As observed above, Rule 39(1) does not empower the Executive Officer of the Bank to suspend a Manager/Assistant Manager for a misconduct in terms of Rule 35 and hence, in the opinion of this Court, the order impugned is clearly in excess of jurisdiction. 15. Further, it is evident on record that the District Level Advisory and Inquiry Committee, while passing order dated 26.05.2015 (Annexure-11), did not even take note of resolution dated 07.07.2014 of the Society which was forwarded to it. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the Society did not even resolve to disburse the loan to the alleged applicants and it is also not disputed that the petitioner could not have disbursed the loan without there being a specific resolution of the Society for the said purpose. 16. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the Society did not even resolve to disburse the loan to the alleged applicants and it is also not disputed that the petitioner could not have disbursed the loan without there being a specific resolution of the Society for the said purpose. 16. In view of above facts and analysis, order impugned dated 15.06.2015 deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. 17. The writ petition stands allowed. 18. Needless to observe that the respondents would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in terms of Rule 36 of the Rules of 2008 in accordance with law, and if so desired. 19. The second and third stay applications also stand disposed of in light of the present judgment.