V. D. GYANI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, the Barwani Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. , challeng the order dated 22-10-1983, passed by the Revenue Board, Madhya Pradesh vide Annexure 15, thereby holding that the respondent No. 2-Budansingh, who was an appellant before the Revenue Board, could not be held to be guilty of a major misconduct. This finding has been arrived at on consideration of all relevant facts and documents presented before the Courts below. On this finding the Revenue Board also concluded that on facts the alleged misconduct can only be said to be a minor one and in such circumstances an order removing him from service cannot be upheld. It was also observed that the Bank, if so advised and desires, may proceed against the delinquent-respondent No. 2 under Rule 44 (1) of the Banking Services Rules governing the services of respondent No. 2. Instead of following that course the Bank has preferred this petition. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel with reference to the documents filed as Annexures attempted to prove that the petitioner was guilty of an offence and also submitted that it was misappropriation of the Bank amount. The submission, on the basis of the documents made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted at this stage. It was merely a breach of a direction with regard to the particular mode of appropriating the amount of Rs. 5,000, said to have been withdrawn, which was required to be credited in the short term loan account. In fact the alleged misconduct is said to have been committed by some other employee and the present respondent No. 2 is charged with having not brought the same to the notice of the other superior officers or haying failed to keep a strict vigilance on his subordinates. The charge of misappropriation is not against the respondent No. 2. At best it can be said to be a lapse in his supervision work. In such circumstance the view taken by the revenue Board cannot be considered to be per se perverse so as to call for any interference by this in its inherent jurisdiction. ( 3 ) SHRI Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that even in case of conviction, the Supreme Court has directed reinstatement. In such circumstance the view taken by the revenue Board cannot be considered to be per se perverse so as to call for any interference by this in its inherent jurisdiction. ( 3 ) SHRI Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that even in case of conviction, the Supreme Court has directed reinstatement. He has supported his argument with reference to a decision in Shankar dass v. Union of India, [ air 1985 SC 772 ]. This was a case where a person was found guilty of misappropriating funds but later on in the peculiar circumstances of the case the Supreme Court directed that he should be reinstated in service. The present case rests on altogether a different footing. Here the allegation against the respondent No. 2 is not of having misappropriated funds but mere lack of supervision on his part. In such circumstances it is difficult to accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE charge pertains to the year 1972 and by now 13 years have rolled by and there appears to be no justification at all for interference with the order. The respondent No. 2 has all along been in continuous service and nothing adverse is either said or reported against him. ( 5 ) FOR the foregoing reasons this petition fails and is dismissed. The respondent No. 2 shall be entitled to all the benefits of his continuous service. The petitioner shall also abide by and comply with the undertaking given to this Court on 23-1-1984. The petitioner is directed to pay costs to the respondent no. 2, quantified at Rs. 150, if certified. The outstanding amount of the security deposit, after verification, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. .