The specific provisions in the Regulations framed under Rule 30 by the State Cadre Authority will rule out the general provisions, and the court emphasized the importance of policy issues and specific provisions in reaching its decision.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is a workman as Secretary of a Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society (herein after to referred as "PACCS) at Vikas Khand Narayani, Banda challenging the order of suspension issued by Member Secretary of the District Administrative Committee.

2. It has been contended that the Member Secretary, District Administrative Committee could not have passed such an order of suspension as the charges levelled against the petitioner do not warrant major penalty as the charges relate to the absence from duty and not taking interest in recovery proceedings. The suspension order has been passed in contemplation of an inquiry.

3. It is the settled law that a suspension order is not a punishment order but it does have a tendency to place the employee concerned under undue financial hardship.

4. In response to the preliminary objection raised by Shri Sujeet Kumar Rai regarding the statutory remedy of appeal in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralized Service Rules, 1976 Sub-Rule 10 of Rule 8 (1), the counsel for petitioner has submitted that under Rule 30 the State Cadre Authority can frame regulations with prior approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for the members of the Centralized Service on their service matters relating to appointment, probation, promotion, confirmation, seniority, reversion, retrenchment, resignation, termination, pay scale and allowances and other conditions of the service including the conduct of disciplinary proceedings and appeals. Under such a power granted by the Rules the State Cadre Authority has framed U.P. Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Centralized Service Regulation 1978. The provision of appeal has been given under Regulation 60 and it relates to punishment orders only; for example, censure, stoppage of increment, recovery of pecuniary loss from pay, reduction in rank or grade, removal and dismissal. Suspension order being not a punishment order is not an appeal-able order under the Regulation.

5. Shri Sujit Kumar Rai, however, disputes such an argument and says that since the Rules of 1976 gave the Cadre Authority power to hear appeal from any orders passed by the District Administrative Committee, it would include the power to hear appeal against a suspension order also.

6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the preliminary objection raised by Shri Sujit Kumar Rai regarding the maintainability of an appeal against an order of suspension and such statutory remedy not being availed of no writ petition would lie, is legally untenable and is liable to be rejected.

7. The legal infirmity in such an argument can be seen from the language of the Rule -6 "Powers of the Authority" under Centralized Service Rules, 1976 which relates to the power and duty of the State Cadre Authority. It states that the State Cadre Authority shall be the chief policy making body for centralized service and powers, duties and responsibilities are enumerated in Rule 8 which mainly relate to policy issues. If the District Administrative Committee takes a decision which is contrary to the policy laid down by the State Cadre Authority, the order can be challenged even though it is not an order passed in disciplinary proceedings against an employee.

8. However, if there is a specific provision given in the Regulations framed under Rule 30 by the State Cadre Authority, the specific will rule out the general.

9. In Maru Ram Vs. Union of India 1981 (1) SCC 107 the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the law with regard to the special statutes prevailing over the general statutes and also the specific provisions in general statute prevailing over the general provisions made in special statute. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by Shri Sujit Kumar Rai is rejected.

10. On merits of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner's wife was ill an