Judgment Kanhaiyaji, J. 1. The petitioner, Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union. Limited, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Judicial), in Dispute No. 4 of 1969, between Mangal Prasad Verma, (respondent No. 2) and the Marketing Union. 2. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act (Bihar Act 6 of 1935), hereinafter to be called "the Act". Mangal Prasad Verma (respondent No. 2) was appointed a Depot Manager under the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited in 1949. In 1958 the trading activities of the Co-operative Bank were transferred to the Marketing Union, Consequently the services of respondent No. 2 were transferred to the Marketing Union along with other employees of the Co-operative Bank who were engaged in trading activities. Thereafter respondent No. 2 was posted at Jehanabad as Depot Manager and in the year 1967 he was suspended in terms of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Marketing Union. The suspension order was served on him on the 16th August, 1967, under the signature of the Managing Director of the Marketing Union. The detailed charge relating to heavy shortage in the stock of chemical fertilisers at Jehanabad depot was served upon respondent No. 2 on the 20th of November, 1967. A copy of the chargesheet along with Appendices A to D is Annexure 1 to the writ application. The Managing Director of the Marketing Union by his order dated the 20th of November, 1967, directed respondent No. 2 to submit written statement of his defence to the Enquiring Officer and also asked him to write whether he desired to be heard in person. Respondent No. 2 submitted his explanation in the aforesaid departmental proceedings. The enquiry was conducted by Sri K.K. Ambasth, Chief of Administration and Business of the Union. Sri K. K. Ambasth submitted his enquiry report dated the 23rd September, 1968, to the Managing Director. The Managing Director of the Marketing Union submitted his memorandum dated the 25th March, 1969, to the Board of Directors in which he held that the charges relating to shortage in the years 1961, 1962 and 1964 were not tenable but regarding the shortage of 49,200 Kg of Ammonium Sulphate he held that the Depot Manager clearly committed irregularity and the cost of 22,400 Kg. of Ammonium Sulphate should be recovered from him. The Managing Director recommended that respondent No. 2 should be removed from suspension Subject to the punishment, namely, recovery of the value of 22,400 Kg. of Ammonium Sulphate and severe warning in his personal Character Roll. A copy of the memorandum submitted by the Managing Director to the Board of Directors is Annexure 2 to the writ application. The Managing Director after considering the show cause and the enquiry report passed the impugned order, a copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ application. 3. In order to appreciate the points raised in the case, it is better to quote the whole of the impugned order passed by the Managing Director, which is as follows: "In pursuance of Boards Resolution No. 15 dated the 25th March 1969, Shree Mangal Prasad Verma, Depot Manager, who was proceeded against departmentally and charges were communicated to him under letter No. C/4428 dated 20-11-1967 and was placed under suspension under letter No. G/6118 dated 16-11-1968, is removed from suspension with effect from the date of suspension with the following punishment. Recovery of the value of 22,400 Kg. (Twentytwo thousand and four hundred Kg) of Ammonium Sulphate which comes to Rs. 8,288,00 (Eight thousand two hundred and eighty eight) only and (ii) The dues will be adjusted from his pay etc. for that period and the remaining amount of the above recovery will be recovered from his future pay @ Rs. 50.00 (Rupees Fifty) only per month." On the basis of the impugned (Annex. 3) a sum of Rs. 8,288/- being the value of 22,400 Kg. of Ammonium Sulphate, has to be recovered from respondent No. 2 and this above amount is to be adjusted from the remuneration of the suspension period. Respondent No. 2 being aggrieved by the order passed by the Managing Director filed an appeal before the Deputy Registrar. Co-operative Societies (Judicial), Bihar, Patna, and the same was admitted on the 17th June, 1969, and numbered as Miscellaneous Dispute 4 of 1969. Respondent No. 2 being aggrieved by the order passed by the Managing Director filed an appeal before the Deputy Registrar. Co-operative Societies (Judicial), Bihar, Patna, and the same was admitted on the 17th June, 1969, and numbered as Miscellaneous Dispute 4 of 1969. The petitioner being served with a notice to show cause appeared before the Deputy Registrar and by a petition raised a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction and maintainability of the appeal, before him stating therein that respondent No. 2 had chosen a wrong forum for deciding the appeal arising out of the order in a departmental proceeding which is govern-ed by the Staff Regulations of the Union. The Deputy Registrar heard the parties on the question of jurisdiction and maintainability of the appeal and held that he had jurisdiction to hear the appeal as it was not a case of disciplinary action, but a civil decree and further stayed the operation of the order contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same order has come to this Court and filed the present writ application. 4. The Deputy Registrar after hearing the parties took the view that it is not a case of disciplinary action but a civil decree. A civil decree cannot take the form of disciplinary action. The action taken against respondent No. 2 cannot be treated as a disciplinary action. The Managing Director has assumed on himself the functions of a Civil Court end has issued orders in the nature of a Civil Court decree to effect recovery of losses to the tune of Rs. 8,288/-. The course left open to the Managing Director, was to go in award. Therefore, the Deputy Registrar held that the case had been rightly filed before a proper Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing in support of the application has contended that the action taken by the Managing Director is purely a disciplinary action as taken against a paid employee permitted by Bye-laws and Staffs Regulations of the Marketing Union. The only question which falls for determination in this case is as to whether the Deputy Registrar has power to jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by respondent No. 2. 5A. It is neither necessary nor advisable to enter into the merits of the case as the same has no relevancy to the law point which has arisen for determination in this case. 5A. It is neither necessary nor advisable to enter into the merits of the case as the same has no relevancy to the law point which has arisen for determination in this case. The relevant portion of Sec. 48 of the Act, which permits for reference of disputes to the Registrar and confers power upon him to decide the same, reads as follows: -- "48 (1) If any dispute touching the business of a registered society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its managing committee against a paid servant of the society) arises-- ***** (c) between the society or its managing committee and any past or resent officer, agent or servant of the society. such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar". A plain reading of this section gives the impression that the disciplinary action taken by the Society or its Managing Committee against a paid servant is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Registrar. However, counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted before us as it was done before the Deputy Registrar, that the dispute of the nature of this case is covered by Clause (c) of Sec. 48 of the Act. The order passed by the Managing Director is in the nature of a Civil Court decree and, therefore, the appeal has to be decided under the provisions of Sec. 48 of the Act. In my opinion, the argument that appeal lies to the Deputy Registrar and it was rightly accepted by him is not sound and must be rejected. It will be noticed that the dispute which is referred in Clause (c) of Sec. 48 should be between the society or its managing committee and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action. In this case we have to see whether the impugned order had been passed by the Managing Director by way of taking disciplinary action against respondent No. 2 or it was only in the nature of demand of money. Sub-section (1) of Sec. 66 of the Act, as usual, confers power on the State Government to make rules in general terms to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act. In accordance with Sec. 66 of the Act rules have been framed. The rules are The Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules. Sub-section (1) of Sec. 66 of the Act, as usual, confers power on the State Government to make rules in general terms to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act. In accordance with Sec. 66 of the Act rules have been framed. The rules are The Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules. 1959", hereinafter to be called "The Rules" -- Rule 15 says: "(1) A registered society shall subject to the provisions of the Act and these rules, make by-laws in respect of the following among other matters namely:- - (a) the area of its operation; (b) the objects of the society and the ways and means of carrying out those objects; (c) the purpose to which its funds are applicable, the manner in which capital may be raised, and the custody and investment of its funds: (d) the qualifications for admission to remembership, the continuance of such membership and the condition of cessation of or expulsion from membership; (e) the rights and liabilities of members, and the consequences of default in payment of any sum due by a member to the society; (f) the mode of holding general meetings and meetings of the managing committee or any other committee of the society and the powers and duties which may be exercised and performed by such committee; (g) the mode of appointment, suspension and removal of the members of the managing committee and of the officers of the society, and the duties and powers of the committee and its officers and (h) the authorisation of any officer or officers of the society to sign documents on its behalf. (2) If the object of the society includes the creation of funds to be lent to members, the society shall also make bylaws in respect of-- (a)the purposes for which and the security on which loans may be granted; (b) the maximum liability which the society may incur; (c) the maximum limit of loan which may be advanced to a member. (d) the terms and conditions subject to which loans may be granted and extension of time for repayment; (e) the maximum rates of interest on lendings; and (f) the disposal of profits and the maximum dividend payable on paid up Share capital. (d) the terms and conditions subject to which loans may be granted and extension of time for repayment; (e) the maximum rates of interest on lendings; and (f) the disposal of profits and the maximum dividend payable on paid up Share capital. (3) In case of a registered society having as its object the purchase, sale production or distribution of commodities and such other objects, the society may make bylaws in respect of the mode of conducting the business, purchase, sale and stock-taking. (4) A registered society may make by-laws in respect of any other matter incidental to the management of its affairs". It will be noticed that Clause (g) (of Sub-rule (e)) speaks about the mode of appointment, suspension and removal of the members of the managing committee and of the officers of the society and the duties and powers of the committee and its officers but it does not speak about the servants of the society. In this regard we have to refer to Rule 33 of the Rules which is as follows:- - "(1) The appointment of a paid employee in any registered society shall be subject to such conditions as to qualifications, designation, scale of pay and travelling allowances, furnishing of security, compulsory contribution, contribution to provident fund, grant of leave salary, increment, transfer, punishment, suspension, removal or dismissal as may, from time to time, be determined by the Registrar by general or special order. (2) A registered society aggrieved by any order of the Registrar under Sub-rule (1) may within sixty days of the receipt of such order prefer an appeal against the order to the State Govt. and the decision of the State Govt. thereon shall be final". The service conditions of paid employees in any registered society shall be subject to as may from time to time, be determined by the Registrar by general or special order. Clause (2) of Rule 33 provides that if a registered society is not satisfied by any order of the Registrar concerning the service conditions of employees determined by him, it may within sixty days of the receipt of such order prefer an appeal against the order to the State Government. It nowhere touches the exclusion made in Sec. 48 of the Act. In this case Staff Regulations of the Marketing Union were framed and deter-mined by the Registrar. It nowhere touches the exclusion made in Sec. 48 of the Act. In this case Staff Regulations of the Marketing Union were framed and deter-mined by the Registrar. Staff Regulations prepared by the Marketing Union were approved by the Joint Registrar with certain amendments by memo dated the 23rd October, 1967. There is no doubt that these regulations were framed and determined under Rule 33. The procedure for dealing with cases of indiscipline matters is given in Section H(I) of the Staff Regulations. One of the punishments which could be imposed on any employee for any proved act of indiscipline or misconduct is item No. 3, that is, recovery of loss of any kind or cost of damage to any property. It has been correctly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on respondent No. 2 by the Managing Director in this case is one of the punishments prescribed by the Staff Regulations. The appeal against the order of punishment is provided in Section H(II) of the Staff Regulations. The appeal against the order of the Managing Director should have been filed by respondent No. 2 before the Board of Directors of the Marketing Union as he is an employee of the third grade. The Managing Director was conscious of this power and therefore, in the order which was challenged before the Reputy Registrar he has mentioned that respondent No. 2 was proceeded against departmentally charges were communicated to him and he was placed under suspension. He was removed from suspension with effect from the date of suspension with the following punishment namely recovery of the value of 22,400 Kg. of Ammonium Sulphate which comes to Rs. 8,288/-. In my opinion the order passed by the Managing Director is purely a disciplinary action which is excluded from the operation of Sec. 48 of the Act. 6 Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 next argued that after the imposition of the punishment the dispute regarding the realisation of money is covered by Clause (c) of Sec. 48 of the Act, and, therefore, the Registrar has jurisdiction to entertain application under Sec. 48. It is difficult to understand the logic of the argument. 6 Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 next argued that after the imposition of the punishment the dispute regarding the realisation of money is covered by Clause (c) of Sec. 48 of the Act, and, therefore, the Registrar has jurisdiction to entertain application under Sec. 48. It is difficult to understand the logic of the argument. Once it is conceded that the Managing Director had the power to give the aforesaid punishment, it must be held that he can also prescribe the mode of recovery of the amount from respondent No. 2. After the order has been passed by the Managing Director that the amount for the loss of Ammonium Sulphate should be realised from respondent No. 2, the recovery of the amount will not become a dispute which can be referred to the Deputy Registrar under Sec. 48 (c) of the Act It has been held in the case of Ratan N. Tata V/s. S.B. Mathur. (1969) BLJR 984 (985) that the power expressly excluded by Sec. 48 has not been conferred on the Registrar under Rule 33 of the Rules. In my opinion, the view taken by the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 1) in the impugned order is erroneous. It must be held that respondent No. 2 has no right to move the Deputy Registrar in the matter of the punishment imposed by the Managing Director of the Marketing Union and the Deputy Registrar has no power to entertain the appeal and decide the dispute. 7. In the result, I allow the application and quash the order dated the 19th July, 1969 (Annexure 5) passed by the Deputy Registrar (respondent No. 1) and restrain him from proceeding further in Dispute No. 4 of 1969. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs. S.N.P.Singh, J. 8 I agree.