( 1. ) THE petitioner had initially filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 30. 6. 1999 passed by the respondents rejecting the petitioners application claiming difference of pay during of suspension on the ground that the issue in that respect would be decided on completion of the departmental enquiry. However, during the pendency of the petition, as an order terminating the petitioner from service has been passed on 13. 9. 2002, the petitioner by way of amendment has also challenged the aforesaid order.

( 2. ) THE facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner was initially engaged by the respondents as an Assistant State Organizing Commissioner. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him by issuance of a charge-sheet on 26. 10. 1998. On 20. 4. 1999 and 26. 4. 1999, Annexures P-4 and P-5, the petitioner was informed that the departmental proceedings had been cancelled. The petitioner filed an application claiming difference of salary for the period under which he was placed under suspension, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 30. 6. 1999 and, thereafter a new Inquiry Officer was appointed by the respondents on 8. 7. 1999 who initiated fresh proceedings against the petitioner on 7. 8. 1999. This Court, by an interim order dated 4. 10. 1999, issued a direction to the effect that the departmental enquiry instituted against the petitioner shall continue but final orders therein shall not be passed. However, during the continuance of the aforesaid interim order, the respondents have passed a final order in the departmental enquiry on 13. 9. 2002 and dismissed the petitioner from service and ordered recovery of a sum of Rs. 60,000/-with interest @ 10% per annum. The aforesaid order is also subject matter of the present petition.

( 3. ) AT the very outset, the learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the respondents not being a State or its instrumentality and being a private body and the issue raised before this Court being of a private nature, a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable and in support thereof has relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Mradula Sharma vs. State Chief Commissioner, M. P. Bharat Scouts and Guides and others, Misc. Petition No. 631/1994, wherein a Single Judge of this Court has held that the respondents Bharat Scouts and Guides is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sushmita Basu and Others vs. Ballygunge Siksha Samity and Others, 2006 (7) SCC 680, G. Bassi Reddy vs. International Crops Research Institute and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 225, Serbjeet Bhatia vs. GOC-IN-HQ Central Command, Lucknow (UP) and Others, 2004 (2) MPLJ 125 and Yashwant Singh Sikarwar vs. Teresian Carmel Education Society and Others, 2008 (4) MPLJ 611.

( 4. ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of D. L. Sharma vs. M. P. Bharat Scouts and Guides and 3 Others, M. P. 656/1993 decided on 28. 4. 1995 wherein it has been held that the respondent Bharat Scouts and Guide is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others vs. V. R. Rudani and Others, (1989) 2 SCC 691 and Binny Ltd. and Another vs. V. Sadasivan and Others, (2005) 6 SCC 657 in support of his submission.

( 5. ) FROM a perusal of the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Mradula Sharma (supra) it is apparent that this Court by applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court in the c