The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Registrar has the power to rescind a resolution, and the failure to constitute a sub-committee and the deprivation of the right to appeal are contrary to sub-rules (3) & (4) of Rule 198. However, the failure to give a second opportunity before imposing the punishment is not required by Rule 198.

Thomas, ag. C. J.

The Secretary of a Co-operative Society (for short 'the Society') was removed from that post by resolution adopted by the managing committee of the Society. She complained to the Joint Registrar (third respondent herein) against the said resolution. As per the proceedings dated 15.10.1994 (Ext. P5) third respondent rescinded the decision, of the managing committee and directed the Society to reinstate the Secretary. Validity of Ext. P8 is now challenged by the President of the Society in the Original Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution. Learned single judge dismissed the Original Petition. Hence, this appeal under S.5 of the Kerala High Court Act.

2. The main business of the Society is procurement of copra as agent of Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation. First respondent was the Secretary of the Society. On 2.7.1992, in a surprise check, shortage of a huge quantity for copra in the stock was detected. Secretary of the Society was thereupon suspended and an enquiry was conducted. In the meanwhile, a new managing committee has been elected with the present appellant as its President. On the basis of the findings 'reached in a domestic enquiry the managing committee decided to remove the Secretary from service. She then sent a petition to the third respondent and later filed, an Original Petition in this Court for directing the third respondent to take a decision on her representation. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, Joint Registrar passed Ext. P8 proceedings purportedly in exercise of the powers under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules 1969 (for short 'the rules').

3. Third respondent had gone into the merits of the findings and expressed his dissenting view on such findings. However, third respondent further held that the decision to remove the Secretary is vitiated as the decision was not taken by a subcommittee and thereby the right of appeal provided in the Rules was denied to her. Third respondent reached the conclusion that the decision taken against the first

respondent is violative of Rule 193 of the Rules. The decision was accordingly annulled.

4. Learned counsel for appellant has advanced two contentions. First is that power under Rule 176 of the Rules could not be invoked in respect of disciplinary action taken by the managing committee of a Society. Second is, third respondent's view that Rule 198 has been infringed is legally wrong and factually unfounded.

5. Rule 176 of the Rules reads thus:

"176. Registrars's power to rescind resolution:- Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of a registered society, it shall be competent for the Registrar to rescind any resolution of any meeting of any society or of the committee of any society, if it appears to him that such resolution is ultravires of the objects of the society, or is against the provisions of the Act, Rules, Bye-laws or of any direction or instructions issued by the Department, or calculated to disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the society or is contrary to the better interest of the society".

6. There is nothing in Rule 176 to suggest that power under the Rule cannot be invoked if resolution relates to disciplinary actions against any employee. Nor is there any need to read such a rider into the rule. Even if the decision relates to disciplinary sphere of its employees the Registrar can nevertheless invoke powers under Rule 176 provided the resolution offends any provision of law or is against any direction issued by the department or is contrary to society's interest.

7. Shri. V. M. Kurian, learned counsel for the society, invited our attention to the decisions in President, C. V. V. Co-op. Society v. Project Officer (1981 K. L. T. Short T. Bhaskaran v. Dy T.Bhaskaran v. Dy. Registrar (1981 Lab I.C.1512). Both decisions were rendered by single Judges. In one of them Dr. Kochu Thommen, J. has observed that Registrar has no power to nullify an order passed by