The judgment emphasizes the principle of exhausting alternate statutory remedies before seeking relief through a writ petition.

1. Impugned in this petition is order no.Adm/7160 dated 28th August 2009, issued by of respondent no.4, whereby petitioner has been dismissed from the services of the Citizens’ Cooperative Bank Limited.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the grievance projected by petitioner in this petition is that the order, whereby his services have been dispensed with by respondents 3&4, is vitiated as the procedure, prescribed in J&K Cooperative Societies Service Rules, 1988, issued vide SRO 233 of 1988 dated 8th July 1988 (hereinafter called as “Rules of 1988”) for taking disciplinary action against delinquent employees of cooperative societies, to which aforesaid rules apply, has been observed in breach.

3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has in particular drawn attention of this Court to Rule 19 of Rules of 1988, to submit that the procedure laid down in the aforesaid Rules for initiating disciplinary proceedings against delinquent employee, has not been followed in letter and spirit. He has submitted that respondent no.4 was under obligation to serve a definite charge sheet accompanied by statement of imputations of misconduct along with list of witnesses on which respondents proposed to rely upon during inquiry, but aforesaid respondent did not provide the statement of imputations of misconduct or any list of witnesses despite petitioner having made a specific request in this behalf. It is also submitted that order impugned would vitiate as disciplinary authority himself acted as inquiry officer and therefore, became a judge of his own cause. He has also thrown challenge to order impugned on several other grounds; most of them emanating from different provisions of Rules of 1988.

4. Writ petition is resisted by respondents 3&4, who, besides rebutting averments made by petitioner in his petition, have taken a specific objection to the maintainability of writ petition. Learned counsel for respondents 3&4 has contended that in view of statutory remedy of appeal provided under Rule 21 of Rules of 1988, writ petition would not be maintainable and petitioner is liable to be relegated to equally efficacious statutory remedy.

5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

6. It is now settled that writ petition against cooperative societies registered under J&K Cooperative Societies Act 1989 is not maintainable as the cooperative societies registered under the aforesaid Act, are neither State nor instrumentalities of State within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, nor do they perform any duties having public element. This was so held way back in the year 1973 in Abdul Majid Dar v. G.M.Waiz, Administrator, Kashmir Peoples Co-operative Service Ltd. reported in JK Law Reporter (1973) Vol. IV Page 809. Since petitioner in this petition is not seeking enforcement of any byelaws of the societies, as such, objection taken by respondents that petition would not be maintainable, may not succeed. Petitioner, as is apparent from the pleadings, is seeking writ of certiorari for quashing impugned order of his dismissal on the ground that same has been passed by respondent no.4 in violation of statutory rules, i.e. J&K Cooperative Societies Service Rules, 1988, more particularly Rule 19. Since the whole case of petitioner is based on violation of statutory rules, as such, writ petition insofar as it pertains to strict enforcement of statutory rules is concerned, is held to be maintainable.

7. Now this brings me to another objection taken by respondents 3&4, which was strenuously argued by Mr Kakar. This pertains to availability of efficacious alternate remedy in terms of Rule 21 of Rules of 1988. Rule 21 of Rules of 1988, reads thus:

“21. Appeals. — An appeal against an order imposing a penalty shall lie to the Divisional Joint Registrar/Registrar Cooperative Societies within 30 days from the date of passing of the order appealed against.”

8. From the scheme of Rules of 1988, it is abundantly clear that a complete m