( 1 ) THE short question, which arises for consideration in this application, is as to whether violation of the provisions of the bye-law would enable an aggrieved person to avail public law remedy. The petitioner herein was dismissed from service on the ground that he committed the following irregularities: (A) While crediting the loan paid by smt. K. Venka Subbamma to the society account, I had altered the date of payment from 2-10-1999 to 12-10-1999, as if that she discharged the loan on 12-10-1999 even though she paid the loan amount on 2-10-1999. (B) that myself and the Supervisor of the society recommended to grant loan to one Mr. V. Rajeswara Rao and to his brother Kesava Rao even though they are not having any landed property recommended as if they are having lands. (C) that myself and the Supervisor recommended to grant loan to the wife of V. Rajeswara Rao recommending to grant loan showing their fish tanks as wet land in S. No. 274. (D) that myself and the Supervisor who is working along with me in the year 1996 recommended to grant loan to the member of the society of B. Chenchunaidu as if that he is having Ac. 2. 00 land instead of Ac. 0. 45 cents and we also altered demarcation numbers of the land of one k. S. Subrahmanyam.

( 2 ) AN appeal preferred against the order of suspension- dated 3-1-2000 being appeal no. 1 of 2000 before the 3rd respondent had succeeded. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated. An order of punishment was passed. The main contention of the petitioner is that having regard to bye-law no. 12 the order of dismissal could be passed only in consultation with the District level Committee. The District Level committee in terms of bye-law No. 3 comprises of District Revenue Officer, district Co-operative Officer and the general Manager of the Co-operative central Bank.

( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge having regard to the Full Bench decision of this court in Sri Konaseema Co-op. Central Bank ltd. vs. N. Seetharama Raju which has been affirmed in U. P. State Co-op. Land development Bank Ltd vs. Chandra Bhan dubey dismissed the writ petition observing thus: notwithstanding some broad observations made as to the availability of judicial review against anybody or persons seen to have inflicted a wrong on a citizen, the preponderance of judicial opinion is seen to effectuate the principle that it is only a body or agency or instrumentality of the State that it is obligated to the constitutional and public law limitations upon its conduct. Absence of such a characteristic of a respondent or a body, no writ could be issued under article 226 of the Constitution calling up to account for its conduct.

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the order of termination against the petitioner was passed after holding a departmental enquiry and in the said proceedings he was found guilty. The order of punishment- dated 1-2-2001 passed by the 4th respondent reads thus: while you are working as Secretary of primary Agricultural Co-operative society of Khaitepally G. R. No. 416, you have misappropriated the funds. Your misappropriation of funds was established in domestic enquiry as per the report of the Enquiry Officer and as per the resolution of the Managing committee, you are hereby removed from the post of Secretary permanently from 1-2-2001.

( 5 ) IN the instant case, therefore, the managing Committee had also adopted a resolution to terminate the services of the appellant-writ petitioner. The learned counsel, however, submits that in terms of bye-law No. 12 (2) of the Special Bye-laws relating to service conditions of employees of Primary Agricultural Credit Societies, the impugned order must be held to be bad in law. Special Bye-law No. 12 (2) reads thus: no punishment shall be inflicted on any employee without proper enquiry in writing and providing him reasonable opportunity to explain his case and defend himself.

( 6 ) IT does not appear that the said Bye- law was made under a statute. It is not t