A. K. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner by this petition, has challenged the order dated 21 2. 1977 (Annexure L) passed by the respondent No 4 dismissing him from service, order dated 8. 9. 1986 (Annexure P) passed by the joint Registrar /respondent No. 2, reinstating the petitioner without back wages and denying him the benefit of seniority and other consequential benefits, and the order dated 30. 8. 1990 (Annexure R) passed by the Board of revenue/respondent No. 1 affirming the order passed by the Joint registrar. ( 2 ) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the respondent No. 4 Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank, Bilaspur, is a co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 The petitioner was appointed as Clerk/typist on 1. 7. 1968 on temporary capacity by the respondent No. 4. He was confirmed on the said post and thtreafter he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet and filed reply to this charge-sheet. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Committee at Branch Katghora He was placed under suspension. He was not paid the salary but was merely given a subsistance allowance. He applied for payment of T. A. /d A. to attend tht enquiry, but that was not accepted and the same was rejected. Therefore, he did not attend the enquiry. The enquiry proceeded ex pane against him on 26. 11. 1976 and on this date only two persons out of three, who were in the Enquiry Committee, attended the enquiry. All the three persons constituted in the Enquiry Committee, were not present, therefore, normally, the ex pane enquiry should not have been proceeded. However, after recording certain statements of the witnesses, the report was submitted on 13 11. 1976. On the basis of the so called report of the Enquiry committee, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 21. 2. 1977 (Annexure L ). ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED against the order of dismissal, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 55 (2) before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative societies. 2. 1977 (Annexure L ). ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED against the order of dismissal, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 55 (2) before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative societies. The Assistant Registrar, after hearing both the parties and considering the matter, set aside the order of dismissal, being illegal by order dated 6 2 1985 and directed that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. Aggrieved against this order, the respondent No. 4 filed an appeal under Section 77 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies, Act, 1960, before the Joint Registrar/respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 reversed the order of the Assistant Registrar, by order dated 8. 9. 1986 (Annexure P) and found the petitioner guilty of the charges and held that so far as the imposition of punishment is concerned, he was remained out of service from 1977 to 1985. He was denied the salary, bonus and other benefits for 8 years that would be sufficient punishment instead of removal from service So the Joint Registrar directed that the petitioner may be reinstated without salary, bonus and other allowances for the period from 1977 to 1985 i e 8 years. The Joint Registrar further directed that the petitioner will not be ectitled to his seniority. Aggrieved against this order (Annexure P), the petitioner filed a revision before the Revisional Court, i. e. Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by order dated 30. 8 1990 (Annexure R), affirmed the order of the Joint Registrar. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 5 ) SO far as finding the petitioner guilty of the charges is concerned, it is concurrent finding of fact given by the Joint Registrar as well ag by the Board of Revenue. It is not proper for this Court to review that. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 5 ) SO far as finding the petitioner guilty of the charges is concerned, it is concurrent finding of fact given by the Joint Registrar as well ag by the Board of Revenue. It is not proper for this Court to review that. However, both the Authorities have already granted the petitioner the benefit of reinstatement but denied him the benefit of salary, bonus and other allowances for the period from 1977 to 1985 as also denied him the benefit of his seniority Shri R. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that so far as the punishment of denying him the benefit of the salary, the Court may not be inclined to interfere with the finding of the fact, but denying him the benefit of his seniority, that will be unfair because incumbent has been granted the reinstatement. This submission of the learned counsel is well justified. Both the authorities after finding the petitioner guilty of the charges, have granted the benefit of reinstatement but denied him the benefit of salary and other allowances from 1977 to 1985, but denying him the seniority with reinstatement is not proper. There is no provision of denying him seniority by way of punishment. No rule has been brought to notice in which by way of punishment, any person can be denied the seniority benefit when the order of reinstatement is granted Therefore, while affirming the orders of the appellate Authority as also Revisional Court. i. e. Joint Registrar and board of Revenue, I modify the order to the extent of deprlving the petitioner of his seniority. ( 6 ) IN the result, I allow the petition in part and modify the order of punishment to the extent of denying the petitioner the benefit of the seniority. Petition partly allowed. .