D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the impugned order dated 21-7-1984 (Annexure F) passed by the respondent No. 3 dismissing him from service on a disciplinary enquiry from the post of Branch Manager at Sihora of the District Co-operative Central Bank, Jabalpur. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties we have formed an opinion that the impugned order of dismissal deserves to be quashed on grounds more than one. ( 2 ) THE first most serious infirmity in the impugned action pointed out to us is that under the Co-operative Central Bank Employees Service Rules of the year 1977 (which are admittedly applicable to the disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner) the power to award major penalty of dismissal from service of a Manager of a Co-operative Bank, vested in the president but only with the prior approval of the Board of Directors of managing Committee of the Society. In the present case the impugned order does not state that any such prior approval of the Board of Directors was taken before passing the impugned order of dismissal. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the Bank made an attempt to support the action on the basis of the decision in Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Raisen v. Board of Revenue, Gwalior, [ 1987 MPLJ 768 ]. We do not find that the above Full Bench decision can be of any assistance to the Bank where the approving authority was the Chairman who had himself passed the order of dismissal which was upheld. In the present case there is nothing on record to show that any prior approval was given to the dismissal of the petitioner from the services of the Bank. ( 4 ) SECONDLY, the petitioner's grievance appears to be legitimate that he was not afforded effective opportunity to meet the charges levelled against him. It has been submitted that the petitioner was granted medical leave and during his absence the enquiry officer submitted a report copy of the enquiry report (Annexure R-9) was never supplied to the petitioner before imposing the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. Non-supply of copy of enquiry report is a serious breach of the principles of natural justice. la Union of India v. Mohd. Non-supply of copy of enquiry report is a serious breach of the principles of natural justice. la Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, [ air 1991 SC 471 ] it has been held that even after deletion of clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution the delinquent is entitled to a copy of the enquiry report and to meet it. There is, thus, serious infirmity in this case and the petitioner can be said to have been seriously prejudiced due to non-supply of the copy of enquiry report. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent/bank also raised an objection that the petitioner has a forum available for raising a dispute under Section 55 (2) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act before a competent authority under the Act. It is true that the petitioner had an alternative semedy of raising a service dispute under that Act but since in this case the dismissal is of the year 1984 and the petition was admitted and was pending in this court for all these years, we do not think it proper to dismiss the petition on the ground of alternative remedy ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner dated 21-7-1984 (Annexure F)is hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service. So far as the payment of arrears of salary is concerned, we have nothing before us to ascertain whether the petitioner was during the pendency of the decision, gainfully employed or not. It is open to the petitioner to claim arrears of salary by making a suitable application under the provisions of the Act before the authorities under the Act. ( 7 ) IT is made clear that the respondent/bank, is at liberty to initiate a fresh departmental enquiry against the petitioner if the material on record warrants such a course after such a long period. In the circumstances, the petitioner shall get costs of this petition. Counsel fee Rs. 500/- if certified. Petition allowed. .