( 1 ) THE writ petition is filed challenging the order of dismissal passed by the 1st respondent in Proceedings no. 863/90-A, dated 30-8-1990 as confirmed by the appellate authority.

( 2 ) PETITIONER was selected as Mill manager by the Federation of Andhra pradesh Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited and he was posted to Rajahmundry Spinning mills by an order dated 28-7-1987. He was appointed in the scale of Rs. 1800-75-2400 with other allowances as admissible. He was governed by the Rules and Regulations framed by the Federation. The appointment order, however, contained that the appointment was on contract basis for a period not exceeding three years and he was put on probation for a period of one year. After completion of the probation, increments were also released to him.

( 3 ) WHILE so, he was placed under suspension on 25-4-1990 alleging certain irregularities in discharge of his duties. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct enquiry into the misconducts alleged against the petitioner. The Enquiry officer visited the Rajahmundry Mill on 19-6-1990 and gathered some information. Thereafter, he issued a charge-sheet on 22-6-1990. Petitioner submitted an explanation to the said charge-sheet on 30-6-1990. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer only recorded the statement of the petitioner and found the petitioner guilty of the charges vide enquiry Officer dated 22-7-1990. A show- cause notice was issued on 23-7-1990 enclosing the report of the Enquiry Officer and petitioner submitted his representation seeking grant of extension of time. But, however, on 30-8-1990, the orders were passed by the Vice-Chairman and Managing director dismissing him from service. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before the board of Directors under Rule 19 of service Rules on 20-9-1990. The appeal was not considered for a considerable time. In the meanwhile, a criminal case was filed against the petitioner before the II Judicial first Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry for the offence under Section 405 IPC. But, however the criminal case was withdrawn on the ground of mistake of law. Therefore, he filed writ petition challenging the order of dismissal dated 30-8-1990 passed against him.

( 4 ) A preliminary objection was taken as to the maintainability of the writ petition against Co-operative Society. A learned single Judge of this Court on the basis of the decision reported in Baroda Cotton spinning Mills Limited v. A. P. State Cooperative spinning Mills Ltd. , AIR 1991 ap 320 referred the matter to Full Bench. A Full Bench of this Court on 12-10-2001 held that the writ petition was not maintainable against a Co-operative Society as it did not fall within the definition of State or instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Against the said judgment of the Full Bench, the matter was carried in appeal by the petitioner before the Supreme Court and the Supreme court in SLP No. 64461 of 2002 set aside the judgment of the Full Bench and remanded the matter for consideration on merits. When the matter was listed before the Full Bench, it was directed that the same should be placed before the learned single Judge for disposal as to how the case was come up for final disposal before this Court.

( 5 ) IN the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner has committed serious misconduct and therefore, an enquiry was conducted giving opportunity to him to defend his case and finally the competent authority dismissed him from service. Under those circumstances, the order of the dismissal cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to Rules.

( 6 ) IT is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Liquidator has been appointed for Co-operative Spinning Mills federation and he has been impleaded as a party respondent.

( 7 ) AS far as the maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, it is no more res integra. When the Full Bench of this court held that the writ petition was