The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and the State Government have no power to interfere in the day-to-day administration of a co-operative society, including the appointment and dismissal of employees.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. According to the petitioner he was a supervisor appointed on 17-8-1947 in the Co-operative Union Limited, Lucknow, which is a co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. He alleges that his services were under the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Lucknow. While he was holding this post he was in charge of the Branch Union at Chandausi. On 8-3-1950 the application went on leave and he entrusted the store in his absence to one Chandrapal. Kamdar who also after a week, on 16-3-1950, went away without the permission of his superior officer and entrusted the work to one Ganeshi Lal, Salesman of the Union. In the meantime owing to some ill will his name was mentioned in connection with a case under section 363, I. P. C. On account of this the Registrar ordered his suspension till the case under section 363, I. P. C. , was decided. Later on the case under Section 363 was not proceeded with. But the cooperative society started investigation against the applicant and the other two persons chandrapal Kamdar and Ganeshi Lal for misappropriation that was alleged to have taken place in the Union during the time when the applicant was on leave. On 19-8-1950 after the investigation a certain explanation was asked for from the applicant and he was asked to give his reply to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies about the irregularities and charges which were handed over to him on 29-8-1950 the applicant sent his explanation of all the charges and irregularities which were levelled against him and he in this explanation said that those irregularities and misappropriation had been committed by other employees of the Society when the applicant was on leave. It appears that the Union and the Assistant Registrar were not satisfied with the explanation and a case under Section 409, I. P. C. , was started against the applicant and the two other men chandrapal Kamdar and Ganeshi Lal and this case was registered on 12-2-1951. The applicant says that he was quite ignorant of these proceedings and, therefore, on 17-2-1951 he applied to the Registrar, that since proceedings of the case under Section 363, I. P. C. , had been dropped against him and he was not found guilty of any offence during the investigation of which he had been suspeneded, he might be reinstated to his original post. The Honorary Secretary, U. P. Co-operative Union by his letter dated 24-2-1951, asked the applicant to submit his explanation to the Assistant Registrar of the charges which were framed by that officer and to attend the office of the Assistant Registrar at once. It was further ordered that he would be entitled to subsistence allowance. The applicant on 1-3-4951 sent his reply to the Honorary Secretary that he had already submitted his explanation on 29-8-1350 for the charges levelled against him. The case under Section 409, I. P. C; proceeded and it appears that during the pendency of this case nothing was done by the Union about the applicant and he continued to be under suspension. On 14-7-1950 the Assistant Sessions Judge recorded a conviction of the, applicant under Section 409, I. P. C. , and ordered him to undergo a sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- The applicant filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge of Aligarh who on 4-1-1954 acquitted the applicant. Thereafter on 4-2-1954 the petitioner again applied to the registiar, Co-operative Societies, Lucknow, that since he had been acquitted he might be restored, and on 1/7/1954 he sent a reminder to the Registrar. It appears that the Registrar forwarded this letter and the reminder to the Hononary Secretary of the Union for necessary action as he was the real person who could restore the applicant. The honarary Secretary informed the applicant on 10-7-1954 that he was not aware of the judgment of the criminal case acquitting the applicant and, therefore he wa