(1.) By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challanged the order of the Board of Revenue (Annexure-P/11) dated 3 7-108 whereby the order passed in appeal No 28-5-85 preferred against the order dated 9-4-1985 (Annexure-P/10) passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies in case No. 77-112/82 wherein the order of Assistant Registrar passed in case No. 2 80 (Annexure-P/a), Betul on 11-9-1982 was set aside and the order of termination of the petitioner services dated 6-5-1980 was quashed directing the petitioner to be reinstated with backwages.
(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition are thus i The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Accountant in the respondent Bank on 30-7-l976. Thereafter, the petitioner vide order dated 19-8-1978 (Annexure-P/2) was appointed temporarily in the regular pay-scale of Rs.110-5-2 0-EB-6-270-0 300-15-300 of accountant. On a complaint made by one Jairam Gujia, a charge-sheet dated 18-5-1975 was issued to the petitioner as the auditor found petitioner guilty of with drawing the amount of Rs 2 000/-by putting a false thumb impression of Gujia, Petitioner denied the charge and explained the circumstances. A showcase notice proposing punishment was issued to petitioner. In reply to show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted that the petitioner or neither played any fraud no committed any misappropriat'on or embezzelment. The petitioner's case does not fall within the ambit of bye-law 40(i) nor the act of the petitioner amounts to a major mis-conduct. The Chairman of the Bank after considering all the material did not find petitioner guilty, however, petitioner ordered of transfer. The Staff Committee on going through the report of the enquiry and material on record, took a decision on 6-2-1980 Vide Annexure-P/6 of terminating the services of the petitionor by giving him one month's wages in lieu of notice. The petitioner raised a dispute under Section 55 (2) before the Assistant Registrar. Co-operative Societies, who vide order dated 10-9-1992 held the order of termination as legal and proper.The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 77 before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies who held that the enquiry as illegal and improper not in conformity with the procedure laid down, and further held that the petitioner was entitled for 3 months' notice, therefore. set aside the order of The Assistant Registrar and quashed the order of termination. In compliance of the order the petitioner was taken on duty w. e. f. 30-5-1985, The respondent Bank preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed holding that the initial appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary. As no material was produced to show that the petitioner was made permanent on the post, therefore, the petitioner being purely temporary termination of his service after giving one month notice pay in lieu of notice was proper. The Board of Revenue also held the departmantal enquiry as legal and proper observing that the statement of petitioner was recorded on 17-4-1979 and on that very day, statements of other witnesses were recorded and after issuing a notice to show-cause the petitioner's service were terminated.
(3.) Shri M. S Shrod, counsel for the petitioner and Shri A, G Dhande counsel for the respondent Bank were heard. Written submissions also perused