The Assam Cadre Management Co-operative Society Limited is not an instrumentality of the State and, therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 12 of the Constitution.

The case has been referred to Full Bench in view of the importance of the question involved in the case. Judgment in Civil Rule 3176 of 1991 is challenged in this writ appeal by the writ petitioner.

2. Appellant was selected and trained to work as Secretary of Co­operative Societies by Assam Cadre Management Co-operative Society Limited. He was first appointed and posted as Secretary, Ambagaon Samities Socie y, Nagaon on 24.7.75. Later he was appointed as Secretary, Kapasbari Samabai Samity Limited. While so, he was placed under suspension by third respondent Chief Executive Officer of Assam Cadre Management Co-opera­tive Society Limited. Memo of charges dated 16 8 83 was served on him by the third respondent specifying 4 (four) charges and requiring him to file written statement within 10(ten) days. Appellant did not do so. Finally show cause notice was published in a news paper and thereupon appellant submitted explanation dated 15.12.88. Third respondent decided to conduct an enquiry. Intimation that the enquiry would be held on 15.3.89 was sent to appellant by registered post. He did not present himself for the enquiry. Third respondent conducted the enquiry and prepared a report holding appellant guilty of all the four charges. The sacond show cause notice enclosing a copy of the enquiry report and requiring th; appellant to show cause why punishment proposed should not be inflicted on ! im, was sent to him by registered post. He did not respond. Thereupon, third respondent passed an order dated 26.9.89 dismissing appellant from service.This order also was sent to appellant. On 30.5.91, appellant submiUed a representation to Registrar of Co-operative Societies complaining for non-payment of subsisting allowance and praying for reinstatement, ignoring the enquiry and the dismissal. This was on the basis that the appellant was not aware of the development. On 17,6.91 he filed the writ petition seeking to quash the order of dismissal and seeking reinstatement and payment of wages as if he had been in continuous service.

According to appellant, he did not receive the second show cause notice or the intimation regarding enquiry and, therefore, the enquiry and the dismissal order are illegal on account of violation of principles of natural justice.

3. Third respondent filed counter affidavit rebutting the challenge against the enquiry and the dismissal order and contending that the second show cause notice as well as the intimation of enquiry were sent to the appellant by registered post at the address shown in the writ petition and the appellant wai aware of these developments. He also asserted that subsistence allowance was paid upto 30.11.88. Appellant failed to attend the enquiry or to submit reply to the second show cause notice and the enquiry was conducted lawfully. Third respondent was prepared to piy subsistence allowance from 1.12.88. Appellant did not submit reply affidavit.

4. Learned Single Judge, who heard the counsel and perused the records of third respondent, was satisfied that notice of intimation of enquiry and second show cause notice were sent to the appellant by registered post to an address which he had himself given in the writ petition and, therefore, the notice of intimation and second show cause notice could be deemed to have been received by him and as such there was no violation of principles of natural justice. Learned Single Judge noticed that after appellant was placed under suspension, instead of remaining at the headquarters he went to his village and even to the first show cause notice he did not submit written state­ment initially and he did so only after the show cause notice was published in newspaper. Learned Judge also commented on the unusual circumstance that appellant kept quiet in spite of subsistence allowance not having been received for nearly three years. Learned Single Judge found that there was no illegality in the enquiry or the dismissal order and dismissed the wr