The approval of the Registrar is required under bye-law 38 for the dismissal of a manager of a cooperative agricultural association, and the approval of the Joint Registrar is not valid.

( 1 ) IN this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued for quashing an order of the opponent No. 1, the Cooperative Agricultural Association Ltd. , Kawardha, dismissing him from service.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was appointed as a manager of the Co operative Agricultural Association Ltd. , Kawardha, (hereinafter referred to as the Association), on 14th March, 1952 with the approval of the Registrar under bye-law No. 38 and was confirmed in the appointment with effect from 13th October 1952; that on 19th March, 1955 the Secretary of the Association, opponent No. 2 communicated to him an order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur Circle, suspending him with effect from 19th March, 1955; and that at his request he was informed on 13th December, 1955 of the reasons for his suspension, which were, inter alia, that he had disobeyed an order of the Secretary of the Association, that he had misused the contingency amount and the property of the Association, that he had made a false report to the Police against President, Secretary and members of the Association, that he had soldon credit goods belonging to the Association without permission, and that he had withdrawn the amount of his share in the Association without obtaining the sanction of the Managing Committee. On 20th July, 1956, the applicant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Dukhuram v. Co-operative Agricultural Association Ltd. , M. P. No. 269 of 1956, D/- 28-2-1958 (MP), challenging the validity of his suspension. Bhutt, J. (as he then was), who heard the petition, took the view that the order suspending the petitioner was by way of punishment, and that it was bad inasmuch as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to show cause against it. That petition was accordingly allowed and the order suspending the petitioner with effect from 19th March, 1955 was set aside. Thereafter, the Association filed a Letters Patent appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the order of the petitioner's suspension. During the pendency of the appeal, the applicant was dismissed from service by the opponent No. 3, the Officer on Special Duty, approving a resolution passed on 3rd August, 1958 by the Managing Committee of the Association recommending the dismissal of the applicant. The Division Bench, consisting of Hidayatullah, C. J. and Tare, J. , before whom the Letters Patent appeal came up for hearing, therefore, passed the following order disposing of the appeal : 'the suspension order has now got merged in the order of dismissal. The result therefore is that the order of learned Single Judge becomes inoperative and must be discharged. We do so. At the same time there is no need for us to proceed to decide the appeal except to discharge the order of the learned Single Judge. Liberty is reserved to the respondent No. 1 to challenge the order of the dismissal and inter alia the order of suspension. ' The petitioner has now filed this application challenging the validity of his dismissal from service as well as the order suspending him with effect from 19th March, 1955.

( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that the order passed by the Association dismissing him from service was ultra vires and invalid for the reasons that (i) the resolution did not receive previous approval of the Registrar as required by byelaw No. 38, (ii) the meeting of the Managing Committee, at which the resolution was passed, had not been convened in accordance with the relevant bye-laws, (iii) there was no requisite quorum at the meeting, and (iv) the members, who were present at the meeting, were disqualified as on the material date they were defaulters. The petitioner further says that he was not given a reasonable opportunity of meeting the charges levelled against him in that he was not allowed to see the record, no evidence i