Palok Basu, B.K.Sharma, J. - (1.) Short but interesting question which arises in this writ petition is an to whether the power which has been conferred on Managing Director by Amending Act, i.e. U.P. Act. No. 1 of 1997, Promulgated with effect from 16.4.1997 permitting that the Managing Director of a society shall be in-charge only of current duties of the Committee of Management' would mean that the Managing Director can assume the powers as conferred by Regulation No. 86 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Employee's Service Regulations, 1975 or U.P. Co-operative Federation Limited Karmachari Seva Niyamawali. 1980. whichever may be held applicable to the facts of the present case.
(2.) Before proceeding further with the facts of the case it may be pointed out that it is in the year 1976 that the State of U.P. come out with the Amending Act No. 12 of 1976 which permitted that appointment of a Managing Director, instead of Secretary, of Apex Societies. It is undisputed that U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd. is an Apex Society. The powers exercisable by a Managing Director when the' Committee of Management may be in existence is governed by sub-section (4) of Section 31-A of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, here-in-after referred to as the Act. It may be interesting to note here that sub-section (2) thereof provides that "the Managing Director shall be ex officio member of the Committee of Management." The petitioner, Ram Pal Singh Tyagi, has described himself to be the District Manager. U.P. Co-operative Federation Limited, Merrut. This has not been disputed.. It is said that on account of dispatching truck load of sugar later than the time respected an adverse entry was awarded to the petitioner on 25,7.1998 by the Managing Director of the Federation. On 29.7.1998 the Managing Director again passed the order impugned in this writ petition, by which the petitioner was suspended on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him. The U.P. Co-operative Federation and the Managing Director by name have been impleaded as opposite parties 1 and 2.
(3.) When the writ petition was filed on 6.8.1998 the respondents appeared to oppose it and, therefore, time was allowed to file counter affidavit which has been filed to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. Both the sides have filed written arguments also.;