S. K. DUDEY, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petititoner has challenged the order dated 28. 7. 1981 (Annexure p-1) passed by respondent no. 4 under Rule 51 (1) of the M. P. Co-operative central Bank Employees Services (Terms of Employment and Working conditions) Rules 19/7 (for short the 'rules') terminating the petitioner's services simplicitor by giving 3 months notice. ( 2 ) THE petitioner challenged the order by raising a dispute under Section 55 (2) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the 'act')before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raisen. After appraisal of evidence adduced by the parties, vide order dated 4. 8. 1983 (Annexure p-4) the Assistant Registrar, maintained the order of termination. Aggrived of the order the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, vide order dated 10. 7. 85 (Annexure p-5) A Second appeal preferred under Section 71 of the Act was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue, vide order dated 27,7. 88 (Annexure P-8), hence, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) THE Assistant Co-operative Societies after recording of evidence of the parties held that the petitioner was guilty of interpolation in the cash box and kept the amount of cash Rs. 530/- for his own use. When it came to the notice of the Bank the petitioner deposited the amount. The Assistant Registrar also found that the petitioner was in habit of remaining absent from duty without prior sanction of leave. The Board of revenue affirmed the findings of the Assistant Registrar, and relying on a full Bench decision of this Court in case of Central Co-operative Bank v. Shibbulal and others, AIR 1988 MP 3 wherein, held that services of an employee can be terminated simplicitor by dropping the disciplinary enquiry to avoid stigma such an order cannot be considered as an order of punishment. Non payment of notice pay is not a condition precedent and for that the order cannot become illegal. ( 4 ) SHRI S. C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on supreme Court docisions in the cases of Delhi Transport Corpn v. D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101 , Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Non payment of notice pay is not a condition precedent and for that the order cannot become illegal. ( 4 ) SHRI S. C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on supreme Court docisions in the cases of Delhi Transport Corpn v. D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101 , Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Sroja Nath, AIR 1986 SC 1571 , W. B. S. K, Board v. Dash Bandhu ghosh, AIR 1985 SC 722 and O. P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development corpn. Ltd. , AIR 1987 SC 111 , contended that the condition of terminating services on giving notice of one month or notice pay is arbitrary, illegal and is opposed to the public policy and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, such a term in contract is void under Section 23 of the Indian contract Act. It was also submitted that the respondent No. 4 neither pleaded nor proved the misconducts, i. e. of, continuous absence for more than 10 days which is a major mistake under clause 16 of the Rule 45 (I), Misappropriation of the amount after manipulation of record and leter on deposit of the amount after 15 days which is also a major misconduct under clause 12. The testimony of the Bank Manager is not sufficient to prove the charges. The petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to explain that as to how bad why the amount could not be deposited in the cash box on the same day. and whether also the petitioner was in habit of remaining absent without leave and justifiable cause. Though, the order is innocuous, but it is well settled that a court has to lift the veil to find out the real nature of the order, as the order is by way of punishment, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without holding on enquiry in accordence with the procedure laid down in Rule 47. Hence, the order of the Board of Revenue and of Co-operative courts and of terminating a service deserve to be quashed. ( 5 ) SHRI S. C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the power was exercised tinder Rule 51 (1) so as not to cast any stigma on the petitioner. Hence, the order of the Board of Revenue and of Co-operative courts and of terminating a service deserve to be quashed. ( 5 ) SHRI S. C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the power was exercised tinder Rule 51 (1) so as not to cast any stigma on the petitioner. Petitioner was guilty of several lapces and irregularities on his post, therefore, the respondent Bank decided to terminated the services of the petitioner instead of preceding with the misconduct, reliance was placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Central Co-operative bank's case (supra ). In any case as mis-conduct was found proved, by the Assistant Registrar and for that finding is recorded in paragraph 4 of the order, no interference is called tor, as the petitioner did not lead any evidence in rebuttal, nor any prayer was made for that. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing counsel and on going through the record of the case, i am of the opinion that the order of termination of services simplicitor (Annexure P-1) in the facts and circumstances is legal and proper, as the respondent Bank has proved the reasons in support of the order. Therefore, though the enquiry was necessary, but as the respondent Bank decided not to proceed with the misconduct against the petitioner to avoid casting of stigma and bench exercised its power under Rule 51 (1), it cannot be said that the order terminating the services simpliciter is illegal and void. True, it is settled law that clause terminating the services of a permanent employee after giving one month's notice or in lieu of one month's pay is void, but as the facts have come on record the order cannot be considered to be arbitrarily or on the whims of the employer Bank, as the Bank's decision is bona fide and was in the interest of the petitioner. But Shibbulal's case (supra ). ( 7 ) THE grievance that the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to evidence, the petitioner did not make any complaint before the Joint Registrar, rebut the Co-operative Societies or before the Board of Revenue. The contention that the petitioner raised the ground, which was not considered and dealt with cannot be accepted. If that was so, the petitioner ought to have applied for review by filing an affidavit of the counsel who argued the appeal. The contention that the petitioner raised the ground, which was not considered and dealt with cannot be accepted. If that was so, the petitioner ought to have applied for review by filing an affidavit of the counsel who argued the appeal. But, that course having not been adopted no interference under Article 227 of the constitution can be made. Accordingly the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Outstanding amount of security, if any, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed .