A. R. TEWARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is co-operative Bank registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The respondent No- 4 was the employee of the petitioner. Certain allegations in the nature of criminal breach of trust were levelled against the respondent No. 4. It was thus, felt necessary to hold a preliminary enquiry. The respondent No. 4 was suspended on 5. 6. 76 An enquiry officer was appointed on 10. 6. 76. The petitionerm on the basis of the enquiry report, Issued first show-cause notice to the respondent No 4 on 5 8 76 asking him to explain the factum of temporary misappropriation. On 13. 8. 76 the respondent No. 4 seems to have accepted the allegations and prayed for exoneration on the basis of the facts as pressed into service. The petitioner, therefore, held no enquiry and acted upon the alleged admission of respondent No 4 The second show cause notice was issued on 25 11. 76. In reply the respondent No, 4 pleaded the circumstances justifying his innocence. The petitioner acted upon the admission and dismissed the respondent No. 4 on 28 3. 77 (Annexure P/18 ). Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 submitted the dispute before the competent authority under section 55 (2) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. This dispute was later transferred for disposal according to law before respondent No. 3 (Annexure P/19 ). The respondent No. 3 accepted the application set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement in service, but without back wages. The petitioner submitted an appeal before the respondent No. 3 against the order of reinstatement where as the respondent No. 4 submitted an appeal against the dismissal of the claim in regard to back-wages. Both these appeals were heard together. The respondent No. 2 by a common order, dismissed both the appeals. This order, dissatisfied both, the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4. They therefore, preferred appeals before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue (Respondent No. 1) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, but allowed the appeal of respondent No. 4 and directed payment of back- wages also (Annexure P/20 ). The petitioner, now challenges the order (Annexure P/22) as well as the order passed by the respondent No 2 and 3 (Annexures P/20 and P/21) also and seeks confirmation of the order of termination (Annexure P/18 ). The petitioner, now challenges the order (Annexure P/22) as well as the order passed by the respondent No 2 and 3 (Annexures P/20 and P/21) also and seeks confirmation of the order of termination (Annexure P/18 ). ( 2 ) I have heard Shri K. L. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission Shri Sethi submitted before me two points (A) The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have erred in law in holding that the respondent No. 4 was denied responsible opportunity of hearing and in setting aside the order of termination without taking into account the real Impact of the admission of respondent no. 4. (B) The conclusion reached by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is perverse and is not on firm foundation. ( 3 ) AS regards the alleged admission, I find that it was qualified one and did not clinch the issue The petitioner was, therefore, under obligation to hold proper enquiry and to grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to respondent No 4 before passing the order of dismissal (Annexure P/18 ). The respondent No 1 in its order (Annexure P/22) has reached the conclusion that allegation of criminal breach of trust was not proved and proper procedure was not followed. This conclusion is found to be on firm foundation and is not liable to be dislodged or demolished. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel was unable to point out any infirmity or illegality. There is no perversity. I find that entire material was appreciated in its proper perspective. ( 5 ) IN AIR 1984 SC 38 (Mohd Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaquim and others)it is held that the supervisory jurisdiction is limited to seeing that the Court or the tribunal functions within the limits of Us own authority The errors of facts or law are not correctable. There is no jurlsdictional error. There is no perversity either. The direction about payment of back wages is also in confirmity with law laid down in AIR 1988 SC 344 (Union of India and another v. Sri Babu Ram Lalla ). ( 6 ) ON my consideration, I find both the points, pressed by the learned counsel are non-meritorious and they deserve to be re-rejected. ( 7 ) IN the result, I find that this petition should suffer the fate of summary dismissal. Accordingly I dismiss this petition summarily without notice to the other sides. ( 6 ) ON my consideration, I find both the points, pressed by the learned counsel are non-meritorious and they deserve to be re-rejected. ( 7 ) IN the result, I find that this petition should suffer the fate of summary dismissal. Accordingly I dismiss this petition summarily without notice to the other sides. Petition dismissed. .