- (1.) By the Court. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension passed against him by the District Assistant Registrar as Member-Secretary of the concerned Co-operative Bank. The order is challenged on two grounds; first, that in view of the amendment in U. P. Co-operative Credit Societies (Centralised Services) Rules, Rule 14 which authorises the Member Secretary of the District Committee to suspend a member of the centralised services, has become unworkable inasmuch as the District Assistant Registrar whose prior concurrence is required under clause (v) of Rule 14 of the aforesaid rules has himself become the Member-Secretary of the District Committee. It is contended that under the old rules prior concurrence of the District Assistant Registrar was required because at that time the Secretary of the District Co-operative Bank used to be the Member-Secretary of the District Committee. Now the District Assistant Registrar himself has become the Member-Secretary of the District Committee. That being so, the provision for obtaining prior concurrence before suspending a member of the centralised service contemplated under Rule 14 has become unworkable ; secondly, that the order is bad on merits.
(2.) We cannot agree, wehre as here, the authority whose prior concurrence is needed for a particular action, himself becomes authorised to take action, the action cannot be assailed merely on the ground that the provisions for obtaining prior concurrence carries no meaning. The two authorities having been merged in a single functionary the District Assistant Registrar the action taken by that functionary would be deemed to comply with Rule 14 (v) both in letter and spirit. We, therefore, reject the first contention.
(3.) As to challenge to the order of suspension on merits, we refrain from experssing any opinion on the merits of the charges because that is a matter which shall be dealt with by the officer who has been appointed to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner.;