( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as the Manager of the first respondent-Co-operative Bank, in the year 1982. The second respondent is the chairman of the first respondent Bank.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, on or about 1st October 1989, the second respondent became the Chairman of the respondent Bank and he was having the liability of Rs. 4 lakhs towards the respondent Bank. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was discharging his duties sincerely and honestly and he was pursuing the respondent No. 2 for recovering all the dues of the Bank. This approach of the petitioner had antagonised the second respondent and, in turn, other persons in charge of the management of the respondent Co-operative Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent was determined to remove the petitioner anyhow and to appoint a more favourable and pliable person in his place. The second respondent manipulated certain false charges against the petitioner and the chargesheet was issued. The petitioner had filed a detailed reply and requested for appointment of an impartial officer as Inquiry Officer and suggested the appointment of a retired Judge or a senior Executive Officer.

( 3 ) INSTEAD of holding and completing the inquiry, the respondent Bank adopted the short-cut practice and passed the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from service, dated 26th November 1990 (Annexure D to the petition ). Earlier, the petitioner was placed under suspension when the inquiry was initiated. The present petition is filed against the order of dismissal from service as the Manager of the respondent Co-operative Bank.

( 4 ) ANNEXURE D, the order of termination is titled as the order of dismissal and the body of the order states that, during the course of the audit of the Accounts of the Bank when the petitioner was the Manager, it was found that the petitioner had misused his office and there was mal-administration and misappropriation of large funds and he had caused damage to the prestige of the Bank. It is further stated that because of such malpractices of the petitioner and misappropriation of large funds, the Bank had suffered huge economic loss. It is also stated that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 1st October 1990 and the departmental inquiry was started, however, it was not possible to continue the petitioner in service having regard to the nature of his office and gravity of the allegation and, therefore, he was relieved of his services by dismissal.

( 5 ) IT is contended that, Clause 47. 1 of the Bye-laws of the respondent Bank provides for appointment, dismissal, resignation of Manager, Managing Director and chief Executive Officer by the Managing Committee, after obtaining prior approval of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. It is submitted that in the present case, the above procedure has not been followed and, therefore, the order of termination is illegal. It is also submitted that, the termination is penal and is without holding any inquiry and in gross breach of the principles of natural justice.

( 6 ) ON behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the petitioner is involved in grave misappropriation of large funds and it was impossible to continue him in service. In any case, it submitted that the procedural lapse or breach of Bye-law 47. 1 would not entitle the petitioner to maintain a writ petition against the respondent bank, which is not a State or authority of the State or instrumentality of the State. It is also submitted that, the only remedy of the petitioner is to approach the ordinary forum and not the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that, the petition for enforcement of the Bye-laws is not maintainable and it is submitted that the provisions of the Bye-laws are contractual and breach of the provisions of the Bye-laws or the breach of contract would not entitle an aggrieved party to invoke the writ juri