N. Ravi Shankar, J.

1. The point raised in this writ petition is whether the Termination Order passed by the Managing Director of the 1st respondent bank through his Proceedings No. SMCUB/2001/783 dated 15.12.2001 removing the petitioner from its service is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

2. Incidentally the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this writ petition and adjudicate the controversy raised is also questioned by the 1st respondent's Counsel on the ground that on the facts of this case the writ petition is not maintainable. This is the other point raised.

3. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition giving rise to the above two points are not in dispute and can be stated as follows:

The petitioner herein earlier worked as Manager in Andhra Bank which is a nationalized bank and retired from its service on superannuation. Thereafter he was appointed as Manager in the 1st respondent bank which is a Co-operative Urban Bank Limited which is stated to be in private sector and he has been working in it since March, 1998.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent bank agree that the petitioner's appointment was a contractual appointment. It may then be noted that sometime in the month of December 2000, according to the 1st respondent bank the petitioner herein misused his office and misappropriated certain amounts belonging to it in a transaction relating to clearing of certain cheques issued by one of its customers for encashment of the same from his account and received in the clearance. The other details are not necessary. After noticing the said alleged fraud, the 1st respondent bank initially placed the petitioner under suspension by its order dated 11.6.2001 and commenced some enquiry also. It is not necessary to go into those details also, but it would be sufficient to note that ultimately the 1st respondent bank through its competent authority issued the present impugned order dated 18.12.2001 terminating the services of the petitioner from the bank with effect from the same date. Challenging the said Termination Order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the 1st respondent bank did not conduct any enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner though such an enquiry is mandatory as per the relevant rules which have been framed by the bank itself with the nomenclature "Service rules and regulations of Samatha Mahila Co-operative Urban Bank Limited". It is also the plea of the petitioner that the 1st respondent bank which is in Co-operative sector is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court and it is further pleaded that the above rules have statutory force and they have been violated in passing the impugned order, the same is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent bank argued that the appointment of the petitioner was purely a contractual one and therefore, the bank undertook to terminate his appointment and it has to be treated as a termination simpliciter by which no stigma is cast on the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said to be illegal. It is also argued by him that the 1st respondent bank cannot be treated as a State or its instrumentality as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution and its service rules or by-laws do not have any statutory force and therefore, the petitioner cannot complain about their violation. It is also argued by him that since the 1st respondent bank is in cooperative sector and is not an instrumentality of State, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and therefore, the present writ petition is also not maintainable. In support of this contention, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and others, 2003 (7) Supreme 22, to show that when the bank is a private bank and cannot be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 o