( 1 ) SHORN of all the details, the petitioner in the instant writ petition assails the order passed by the first respondent, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in RC N0. 68614/98-L1, dated 22-9-1998 rejecting the revision petition filed by him under Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, (for short the Act ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner joined the services of the second respondent-Bank as Manager (Accounts) in August, 1990 and later on promoted as Deputy Managing Director and as at present is the Managing Director (under suspension ). The Board of Directors of the second respondent-Bank through its resolution dated 3-9-1998 kept the petitioner under suspension pending inquiry into the allegations. The petitioner is alleged to have committed several irregularities in sanctioning loans and cash credit. He is also alleged to have involved in mis-appropriation of bank funds under the head cheque discounting in King-Koti Branch. The same is stated to have come into light during the Audit report and the Auditors are stated to have submitted their special report to the District Co-operative Audit Officer, Hyderabad, for which a statutory inspection is ordered by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 52 of the Act. No opinion need be expressed with regard to the said allegations levelled against the petitioner. The allegations, obviously, are all subject-matter of inquiry and it would not be appropriate to say even a word about the same. No doubt Sri Nooly Rama Mohan Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to invite the Court s attention to sonic proceedings, in support of his submission that the order is the result of high-handed and malacious action on the part of the Chairman of the Bank. It is not possible to look into the details of the allegations and express any opinion even for the purposes of the disposal of this writ petition, as any observation from this Court may cause avoidable prejudice to the parties, including the petitioner. The decision has been taken, obviously, by the entire Board of Management of the Bank; and not by any single individual. The allegations are not trivial and flimsy in nature. The said allegations require elaborate and impartial inquiry.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, the petitioner had chosen to make serious allegations against the Chairman and the Board of Directors of the Bank; whereas the order suspending the petitioner says that the petitioner is interfering into the affairs of the Bank and is trying to destroy the evidence both in the Head-office and in King-Koti Branch, He is trying to exert undue influence on the witnesses. Obviously, there is internecine war between the petitioner and the Chairman of the Bank. The petitioner, himself, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, rightly says that he is not traversing any of the allegations made or the defence which he may have in support of those allegations, as the matter is likely to be inquired into when the respondents consider it necessary to do so.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, the learned Counsel for the petitioner mostly confined his submissions with regard to the validity of the order dated 22-9-1998 passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 3-9-1998 passed by the second respondent-Bank before the first respondent herein by way of a revision petition under Section 77 of the Act. The Registrar through the impugned order rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner holding that he has no jurisdiction whatsoever to interfere with the order of suspension either under Section 77, 76 (2) or 4 (2) of the Act. The order in my considered opinion docs not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference of this Court. The decision arrived at by the Registrar is perfectly correct.

( 5 ) SECTION 77 of the Act confers revisional jurisdiction upon the Registrar to