S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India for quashing the order dated 20-8-1981 (Annexure-F), passed by the Revenue Board. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 Daulatram did not file any return. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 Daulatram was a peon in the petitioner Bank. He was charge sheeted for certain misconducts. On an inquiry into these charges, he was found guilty. Ultimately by order dated 1-1-1976 his services were terminated. Respondent Daulatram challenged his termination by filing an application under Section 55 (2) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Annexure-A is a copy of that application. Petitioner Bank filed its written reply opposing the application of respondent daulatram. ( 4 ) THE Deputy Registrar, after trial, by his order dated 20-6-1979 (Annexure-C) negatived the objections as were raised by respondent Daulatram. He found the inquiry to be legal. The application filed by respoadent daulatram was, therefore, dismissed. Against that order, Daulatram filed an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 30-3-1981 (Annexure-E) by the joint Registrar. Respondent Daulatram preferred Second Appeal to the Board of Revenue which was allowed vide order dated 20-8-1981 (Annexure-F), ( 5 ) LEARNED Member of the Board of Revenue in paragraph 4 of his order (Annexure-F) by reference to the order (Annexure-E) of the Joint Registrar observed that there were two charges against Daulatram, one being about refusal to accept the letter and the other about misbehaviour. The order (Annexure-E) of the Joint Registrar clearly indicates that there was yet another charges about Daulatram having given abuses. The Joint Registrar in the same paragraph had further observed that the charge about Daulatram having abused was not proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the charge about misbehaviour was different from the one relating to abuses. In view of this it was rightly contended by the petitioner's counsel that the learned member of the Board of Revenue made a factual mistake in having found in paragraph 5 of his order that the only charges even if that be taken to be proved was about refusal to take the letter. He thereby ignored the other charge about misbehaviour. He thereby ignored the other charge about misbehaviour. On that assumption the learned Member, Board of Revenue felt that the charge relating to refusal of the letter being a very petty one, the punishment of removal was disproportionate to it. Accordingly, he set aside the orders of the subordinate authorities and ordered his reinstatement from 2-1-1976. ( 6 ) IT is, therefore, apparent that the impugned order is based on a factual mistake on a very material and pertinent fact. This in itself is, in my opinion, sufficient for setting aside the impugned order of the Board of Revenue. The Deputy Registrar on a consideration of the charges which were held to be proved had ordered removal of the employee. This was upheld by the joint Registrar in appeal. In my opinion, therefore, the punishment did not call for any interference. ( 7 ) LEARNED Member of the Board of Revenue in the impugned order had also observed that the authorities below did not deal with the merits of the case. Before the Deputy Registrar, the objections put-forth by the employee were with regard to the non-compliance of certain formalities during the domestic inquiry. The Deputy Registrar had negatived those questions on facts. These findings were upheld in appeal by the Joint Registrar. Thus there was no question of going into the merits of the charge. ( 8 ) THE questions apart I may refer to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Jagmohan Singh v. Board of Revenue and others [m. P. No. 188/73 decided on 6-1-1978j, whereby the Division Bench following a full Bench decision of this Court in R. K. N. S. Samiti, Durg v. Presiding Officer, [1975 M. P. L. J. 583], observed that "from a perusal of the majority judgment in the aforesaid case, which is binding on us, it is clear that the Registrar has to decide the dispute under Section 55 ( 2) according to the law of master and servant, the provisions of the Act and rules and bye-laws applicable to the society. The Registrar does not possess the wider jurisdiction exercised by the industrial Tribunals or Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act. Under the law of master and servant, an order terminating the service of an employee cannot be declared to be invalid even though it may be in breach of the contract of service. The Registrar does not possess the wider jurisdiction exercised by the industrial Tribunals or Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act. Under the law of master and servant, an order terminating the service of an employee cannot be declared to be invalid even though it may be in breach of the contract of service. The employee in such a case can claim only damages. No declaration can be obtained even if the employer terminates or repudiates the conrtact of service in bad faith. However, if the termination of service contravenes any statutory provision, the order of termination would be invalid. [see also Ramswarup v. M. P. Co-operative Mar. F. Ltd. 1976 M. P. L. J. 376]. ( 9 ) THERE is nothing to hold that the termination of the services of the employee contravened any statutory provision. That being so the question of reinstatement of respondent No. 4 Daulatram even otherwise did not arise. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20-8-1981, passed by the Board of Revenue is quashed and that of the Deputy registrar which was upheld by the Joint Registrar in appeal is restored. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to the costs of this petition. The amount of security deposit be refunded back to the petitioner. Petition allowed. .