A co-operative society is not 'state' within the meaning of art. 12 of the constitution, employment under a co-operative society does not constitute 'public employment', and a co-operative society is not statutory in character.

R. N. MISRA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE samasingha service co-operative society limited (opposite party no. 1) hereafter referred to as the 'society' is a society within the meaning of s. 2 (k) of the orissa co-operative society act, 1962 (hereafter referred to as the 'act') having its registered office at samasingha within the district of sambalpur. Petitioner was appointed as secretary of the said society and was an officer within the meaning of s. 2 (g) of the act. On 19-11-78 the president of the society (opposite party no' 2) suspended the petitioner from service and directed mm to hand over charge of his office to the co-operative extension officer of the kolabira block. Later that day, the board of management of the society approved the action of the president and also accepted the resignation of the president. The co-operative extension officer was appointed as the enquiring officer to investigate into the charges against the petitioner. He called upon him to officer his explanations against the charges. Though there is some amount of confusion as to whether the order under annexure 1 was one of suspension or discharge, the succeeding president of the society wrote the following. Letter to the enquiring officer :'. . . . . . . . . THAT the discharge order of 19-11-1978 is illegal as before issuing the discharge order, no charge sheet has been issued to the secretary. He was not even asked to show cause and there was no domestic enquiry made by ou board. So, the whole proceeding started against the secretary (now suspended) is illegal, without jurisdiction and without justification. So, i request that before starting any proceeding against the secretay, the status quo be maintained, and the suspension resolution be declared as null and void as if the secretary seeks any redress in legal court we will be bound to lose and our society would unnecessarily face irreparable loss in defending the case. " on 30-12-1978 the same president informed the petitioner that with effect from the date of issue of the order petitioner was removed from service. Challenge in this application is to the order of termination and petitioner has clamed consequential service benefits.

( 2 ) OPPOSITE parties 1 and 2 have filed a common counter affidavit. Therein it has been pointed our that specific charges had been framed agaigst the petitioner by thepresident and such action was subsequently ratified by the board. Petitioner did not show cause against the charges though a direction to the effect was given. The extension officer was entiusted by the board with the work of enquiry. Allegation has been made in the counter affidavit that the letter dated 14-12-1978 said to have been written by the interim president was a concoction. No such letter was actually issued to the co-operative extenion officer. The assistant registarar of co-operative societies, kuchinda, by his letter dated 30th of dec, 1978; advised the president to give effect to the decision of the board dated 16-12-1978 in which it had been decided that petitioner's services should be put an end to. The final decision, therefore, was not of anybody else except the board of the society which was competent to make the order. A specific plea was taken that the society was not 'state' within the meaning of art. 12 end, therefore, the matter did not come within the ambit of art. 226 of the constitution and petitioner was not entitled to claim relief of restoration to service by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. A separate counter affidavit was filed by opposite parties 3 and 4 who were the enquiring officer and the assistant registrar respectively. The factual stand taken in the other counter affidavit was adopted and further details of delinquency which led to the order of termination of service were indicated. These public officers also todk the stand that the matter was not cognisable in the extraordinary jurisdiction as the society was not 'state'. Petitioner filed a rejoi