Devinder Gupta, J.—The preliminary objection raised in these seven writ petitions arising for determination is as to whether the three Societies registered or deemed to have been registered under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (H. P. Act No. 3/69) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with respect to the matters pertaining to the service of their employees.

2. The three Co-operative Societies are the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd., The Mall, Shimla (hereinafter called the M. P. Co-op. Bank) ; the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as the Kangra Bank) and the Himachal Pradesh State Co operative Marketing and Development Federation Ltd,, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as HIMFED).

3. It is not in dispute that the Societies are Co-operative Societies duly registered under the Act and are governed by the provisions of the Act. They have their own bye-laws and set of service rules governing the terms of employment of the employees. Before proceeding to deal with the case with respect to each Co-operative Society, we would like to give the background under which the preliminary objection has come up for consideration for which reference will be made to the facts of GWP No. 17/79.

4. The respondent-Society in Its return had already taken up the preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the writ petition against it On coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and establishment of the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, an order was made on 5th September, 1986 to consider the question as to whether or not the case is required to be transferred to the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. On 14th November, 1986, the following order was passed i "In view of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank in Civil Writ Petition No. 291 of 1978, Rajesh Kumar Khachi v. Registrar Co-operative Societies Himachal Pradesh and others, which affidavit, with the consent of parties, has been read in the present proceedings, the Court is, prima facie, of the view that it has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition. The petition is, therefore, not required to be transferred to the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at the present stage. The question of jurisdiction, if and when raised, will be finally adjudicated upon at the final hearing of the petition."

5. When the matter came up for final hearing alongwith a bunch of other writ petitions, it was the preliminary objection, which was heard by a Division Bench of the Court and on 19th November, 1991, the said preliminary objection was partly decided holding that a Co-operative Society registered under the Act shall be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution only when it can be characterised as a State or ‘Authority’ under Article 12 or when a person enforces a statutory public duty, which such institution is bound to enforce. Otherwise no writ lies against such a institution.

6. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent despite the aforementioned decision still remains to be finally decided and this is how that ail these petitions were heard in order to decide as to whether the three different Societies, registered under the Act, will be amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard at length on 4th December, 1992 and 17th December, 1992 and we now propose to dispose of the question raised before us.

7. In CWP No. 17/79, the petitioner was working as a Clerk in the branch office at Mandi. Through letter dated 31st May, 1974, it was pro posed to hold disciplinary enquiry against him with respect to certain charges Charge sheet (Annexure-A) was duly served upon him. Respondent No. 4 was appointed as the Inquiry Of