K. Venkataswamy, J.

1. These two writ petitions are filed by the same individual questioning initially a show cause notice issued by the first respondent in W.P. No. 1598 of 1984 and subsequently questioning the order of dismissal by the respondent in W.P. No. 6703 of 1984.

2. As the matter relates to the same individual and the facts are also common, these two writ petitions are dealt with by this common order.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions are the following: The petitioner, at the time of the issue of show cause notice was working as Supervisor in the Triplicane Urban Cooperative Society Limited, Madras-5, hereinafter called the 'TUCS'. A show cause notice on 15th June, 1983 was issued calling upon the petitioner to explain the charges set out in the show cause notice within seven days from the date of its receipt. The charges levelled against the petitioner along with three others were:

1. that they issued rationed commodities in excess against the limit fixed in the bills;

2. The A register number and the card number were not noted in the bills;

3. non-maintenance of registers while they were working in the Luz Mini Supermarket.

To this show cause notice the petitioner replied on 6th July, 1983 that he being a Sales Supervisor, has nothing to do with the charges and it is the Accountant who is answerable for the charges. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer, namely, Co-operative Sub-Registrar, submitted his report. The Enquiry Officer found that all the charge-sheeted employees are responsible for, the Charges levelled against them and he also held all the charges proved. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the first respondent in W.P. No. 1598 of 1984 issued a second show cause notice on 11th February, 1984 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. On receipt of the second show cause notice, the petitioner, aggrieved by that, filed W.P. No. 1598 of 1984 and obtained an order of interim Stay of all further proceedings. Final orders in W.M.P.Nos. 2461 and 9562 of 1984 were passed on 20th June, 1984 vacating the interim stay, initially granted and while vacating the interim stay, S. Natarajan, J., observed that the petitioner has got to meet the show cause notice and if his representation is not accepted and if he is aggrieved with the orders passed against him, the petitioner can then seek the interference of this Court to examine the merits of the case. A copy of this order seems to have been given subsequent to 23rd June, 1984. But on 21st June, 1984, the first respondent passed final orders dismissing the petitioner from service which made the petitioner file W.P. No. 6703 of 1984 challenging the order of dismissal.

4. Mr. G. Viswanathan, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition against the first respondent whose orders are under challenge. He places reliance on a recent judgment of this Court reported in P. Kannan v. Office of the Director of Sugars, Madras 1984 Writ L.R. 152, wherein Ratnavel Pandian, J., has held that a writ against a co-operative society cannot be granted. As against, this, Mr. Murugesan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that, the TUCS stands on a different footing as it is controlled by Government and 85 per cent of the shares are held by Government and he also pointed out various by-laws of the TUCS to support his stand. He also relied on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Madan Mohan Sengupta v. State of West Bengal (1966) 12 F.L.R. 30 : A.I.R. 1966 Cal. 23, and a Division Bench judgment of this Court against the very same TUCS. He placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hosia v. Khalid Mujib. The Division Bench judgment of this Court, in Writ Appeal No. 74 of 19.70, dated 13th November, 1973, seems to be directly in point and that being a case relating to the very sam