B. D. Agrawal, J. - (1.) Learned counsel contends that the impugned order of suspension against the petitioner employed as supervisor could not be passed by the Chairman, District Committee and that such an order, if may, could be made by the District Committee alone. We are unable to agree to this submission keeping in view the provisions made in Regulation 67 read with Regulation 10(4) (vi) of the Co-operative Federal Authority Business Regulation, 1976. From these regulations it would appear to be manifest that the Adhyaksha is empowered to exercise the same powers as the District Committee in certain matters and in relation to suspension also such a power is not excluded from the authority of the Chairman.
(2.) The other argument of the learned counsel is that the notification issued by the State Government UDder Section 123(1) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act vide Annexure-I contemplates that the power be exercised by the District Committee itself and that it is not open to the committee to frame any regulation in this behalf. We find no merit in this contention either. The notification only creates the District Committee leaving the committee to regulate its functions such as it may reasonably deem appropriate in the exercise of its power to regulate these functions of the committee and other functions as it suppress.
(3.) The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;