V. S. KOKJE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was a servant of the respondent Co-operative bank. He was dismissed from service. He has challenged directly before this Court the order of his dismissal, the show cause notice and the charge-sheet issued to him. ( 2 ) IT is contended that while dismissing the petitioner, the respondent co-operative Bank followed the provisions of the statutory service rules, especially rules 40, 41 (3) and 41 (4) of the Nagrlk Sahakari Bank Karmachari sewa Niyam. It was contended that the show cause notice was not given under the prescribed form-B to the petitioner. It was also contended that the show cause notice was not given under the prescribed form-B to the petitioner. It was also contended that no enquiry was conducted as per the rules, which require an enquiry to be conducted under rule 41 (3) of the Rules after issuing the show cause notice in the prescribed form-B. ( 3 ) IT was further contended that before issuing the show cause notice an enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and on the basis of that enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed. It was contended that as the procedure prescribed by the rules has not been followed, the dismissal deserves to be set aside. ( 4 ) IN the return it was contended that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 16. 3. 1985 in the shape of an order for departmental enquiry and a copy of the order was supplied to the petitioner. It was further contended that the petitioner had admitted all the charges before the enquiry officer in the statement, which was signed by him. On the same day the petitioner also submitted his resignation. These documents were filed along with the return it was, therefore, contended that in view of the admission of the petitioner, no question of enquiry arose. It was also contended that a dispute under Section 55 (2) of the M. P. Co-operatjve Societies Act, 1960 before the Registrar was the proper remedy for the petitioner, which has not been resorted to by the petitioner. ( 5 ) AFTER the return was filed, the petitioner filed a rejoinder to it. He admitted that on 18. 3. 85 his statement were recorded. He alleged that his statement was tampered with and forged and, therefore, he wanted production of the original of Annexure R-1. ( 5 ) AFTER the return was filed, the petitioner filed a rejoinder to it. He admitted that on 18. 3. 85 his statement were recorded. He alleged that his statement was tampered with and forged and, therefore, he wanted production of the original of Annexure R-1. The petitioner also alleged in his rejoinder affidavit that the evidence was connected after the filing of the petition. It has also been contended in this rejoinder affidavit that the alleged admission was obtained by fraud were keeping the petitioner in the dark. No details of fraud were however given in the rejoinder. It has also been contended in this affidavit rejoinder that the resignation letter was also a forged document and was taken under threat and mis-representation It has also been stated that if it is taken to be a resignation letter, the petitioner withdraws it. After this rejoinder was filed on behalf of the petitioner, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents denying any forgery having been committed. ( 6 ) IN this background, what we find is that the petitioner has suppressed originally in the petition the fact that he has resigned and that he had admitted his guilt. Even though the petitioner is alleging that the resignation and the statement of admission was forged and was taken from him under coercion or mis-representation. He had the knowledge that these document exist. The pensioner was, therefore, duty-bound to refer to these documents in his petition along with his explanation for the existence of these documents. The petitioner has not done so. He has clearly suppressed material facts, which if had been brought to the notice of this court at the time of admission of the casem in all probability the petition would have been thrown out on the ground that it raised disputed questions of fact To our mind, the petitioner has not come to this court with clean bands and this petition deserves to be dismissed on ths ground of suppression of material facts in this petition. ( 7 ) THE petitioner has not explained as to why remedy under section 55 (2) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was not an equally efficacious remedy in the circumstances of the case. ( 7 ) THE petitioner has not explained as to why remedy under section 55 (2) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was not an equally efficacious remedy in the circumstances of the case. The contention of the petitioner that once the petition was admitted, question of alternate remedy is relegated to the background can not be made applicable and cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the admission of the petition was obtained by suppression of material facts. If at the time of admission, the resignation letter of the petitioner and his admission in his statement, of his guilt had been brought before the court and if it had been said that these documents were forged and were not binding on the petitioner, the petition would not have been admitted because it raised disputed questions of facts. The situation has not improved by admission of this petition. Even today the difficulty is as to whether the resignation letter and the statement is forged. We have called the original of the documents at the behest of the petitioner and we do not find any proof of tempering with the documents so far as the admission is concerned. Even the petitioner has not challenged tempering with the main part of the statement, whereas the petitioner has clearly admitted to have obtained a blank cheque from M/s. Parvati Textiles, an account-holder of the Bank and after filling a sum of Rs. 20. 000/- and making it payable to self encashed it though there was no sufficient balance in that account. In the statement, the petitioner admitted to have forged the ledger by making a false credit entry of Rs. 20,000/- in the account of M/s. Parvati textiles, so that the cheque may be honourd. The petitioner also admitted in bis statement that the ledger was tampered with by making debit entries in two other accounts so that the discrepancy is not found out. The petitioner has not denied the signatures on this statement or his resignation. He has turned around after the employer refused to accept the resignation and persisted him from dismissing him. ( 8 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, whatever be the legal and technical position about the procedure to be followed before dismissal. The petitioner has not denied the signatures on this statement or his resignation. He has turned around after the employer refused to accept the resignation and persisted him from dismissing him. ( 8 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, whatever be the legal and technical position about the procedure to be followed before dismissal. We no not find this to be fit and proper to use our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant any relief to the petitioner The petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall pay the costs of the respondent. Costs quantified at Rs. 1500/ -. Petition dismissed. .