M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the Bangalore Grape Growers Marketing and Processing Co-operative Society (here in after referred to as the 'society') and it is directed against an order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at bangalore dated 18-7-1986. I shall very briefly recount the salient features of the controversy which have culminated in this proceeding. The petitioners are a Society dealing essentially at that time with agriculturists and agricultural produce. The respondent in the year 1981 was working as the accountant-cum-Loan Recovery Officer at Bangalore. It is alleged that one B. C. Ramegowda had sent a demand draft for rs. 9,000/- towards certain outstandings of his and that out of the amount tendered by him, the respondent adjusted an amount of Rs. 745. 60 ps. which was the outstanding amount against the name of his brother K. M. Venkatappa, It is the case of the Society that the respondent has misconducted himself by adjusting this amount of Rs. 745. 60 ps. out of the amount tendered by Ramegowda to clear off the outstandings of his brother Venkatappa. Accordingly a charge-sheet dated 5-10-1981 was issued to him asking him to show-cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken and the essence of the charge-sheet was that he had mis-utilised Rs. 745. 60 ps. out of the amount tendered by the member Ramegowda to wipe off the arrears standing against the respondent's brother's account and he has therefore not only acted irregularly and improperly but that it also constituted falsification of accounts insofar as the outstandings against his brother's accounts were wiped out. The society contends that in the enquiry that followed, that the respondent did not effectively dispute the facts and that the enquiry Committee submitted a report to the Managing committee of the Society that the misconduct was established. After following the due process, a punishment was imposed on the respondent whereby he was demoted and effectively, his salary was reduced from the scale that he was at that time drawing of Rs. 1,060/- to the lowest in scale 5 namely of Rs. 400/- per month. The respondent challenged this decision before the co-operative Court and both the parties led evidence before that forum. The Co-operative Court in the first instance, dismissed the respondent's dispute after which the matter went in appeal to the Tribunal. 1,060/- to the lowest in scale 5 namely of Rs. 400/- per month. The respondent challenged this decision before the co-operative Court and both the parties led evidence before that forum. The Co-operative Court in the first instance, dismissed the respondent's dispute after which the matter went in appeal to the Tribunal. The Society contends that the grounds on which the Tribunal has interfered with the decision are unsustainable insofar as the Tribunal has upheld the charge that there was heavy bias against the respondent and further more, the tribunal has set aside the final order passed by the Managing committee and held that it was open to the Society to hold a de novo enquiry. The Society also contends that apart from the aspect of bias that the Tribunal has also proceeded on the footing that the office-bearers of the Society have acted both as a prosecutor and Judge in the same cause and that consequently there was an infringement of procedure. It is essentially on these grounds that the order of the Tribunal has been challenged. I need to add here that subsequently there were certain other developments and there is some other litigation because the petitioner came to be charge-sheeted on certain other facts which ended in an order of dismissal which is also challenged by him. That writ petition was subsequently filed and since this petition was already pending, the two matters were directed to be heard together. The facts, the law etc, in relation to the other writ petition which is connected with a third petition will be dealt with by me separately because that proceeding has nothing to do with the present one. ( 2 ) APPEARING in support of the petitioner-Society, Mr. Rao has submitted that this is a case in which no interference was warranted. He contends that the facts are effectively admitted and that even the aspect of so called bias etc. ( 2 ) APPEARING in support of the petitioner-Society, Mr. Rao has submitted that this is a case in which no interference was warranted. He contends that the facts are effectively admitted and that even the aspect of so called bias etc. that the Tribunal has upheld are purely and completely academic for the simple reason that once the matter went to the Co-operative Court, the parties have led fresh evidence before that Court and he submits that the Co-operative Court has decided the matter on merits which seems to have been completely overlooked by the Tribunal and therefore since the proceeding before the Co-operative Court virtually superseded whatever might have happened before the society; that there is a gross error on the part of the Tribunal in setting aside the enquiry on the ground of bias etc. without considering what specifically transpired. He has also submitted that there was no allegation of bias at any earlier stage of the proceeding and that it is very clear that this was an afterthought. He submits that no material has been adduced to dispute the allegations in the charge-sheet and as regards the procedure adopted it is his contention that in a given instance it is permissible for a Disciplinary Authority to conduct an enquiry by itself without delegating the powers to anyone else and that therefore there is no infringement of the well-settled procedure. ( 3 ) THE respondent's learned Advocate has vehementlysubmitted that this is a case in which the decision was motivated and that it was malicious. He submitted that the respondent had fallen foul of some of the officials of the Society and that they were virtually after his blood; that they have concocted the evidence and that even as far as the punishment was concerned, that they have awarded the harshest possible punishment to the respondent and that under these circumstances the entire procedure is vitiated by mala fides. One of the submissions canvassed was that a particular official of the Society was virtually insisting on dominating the other officials and that it was at his instance that the charge-sheet was issued which ultimately culminated in the punishment. I shall dispose of this head straightaway because I am inclined after hearing both the learned Advocates and perusing the material before me to accept the position that no case of bias has been made out. I shall dispose of this head straightaway because I am inclined after hearing both the learned Advocates and perusing the material before me to accept the position that no case of bias has been made out. The merits of the matter will be dealt with by me separately but to my mind, it is well-settled law that in cases where bias is alleged, that it is necessary to establish it at least to a reasonable extent through material from which a Court can come to the conclusion that the allegation was well founded. It may be true as appears to me from the records of this case that there were some personal animosity between the respondent and other persons but beyond this I am not prepared to hold that the enquiry was vitiated by bias. Even as far as the procedure is concerned, I do not find anything wrong with the manner in which the enquiry was conducted and therefore both the grounds on which the tribunal was inclined to interfere with the decision in this enquiry are wholly incorrect and will have to be set aside. ( 4 ) THERE is an entirely different dimension to the entire case which I need to go into for the simple reason that this Court can not leave the matter in the air with a piece meal decision. Mr. Rao, on behalf of the Society has submitted that Ramegowda has given documentary confirmation to the Society through exhibit A-3 indicating that he had not authorised the respondent to credit the amount of Rs. 745. 60 ps. to the account of his brother. He also relies on the fact that Ramegowda has somersaulted as a witness and he submits that this material conclusively establishes the charge. He has submitted that the controversial document Exhibit A-2 which happens to be a letter also written by Ramegowda and signed by him whereunder he has asked that the amount of Rs. 745. 60 ps. be credited to the account of the respondent's brother cannot be relied upon having regard to the subsequent confirmation and the evidence of ramegowda. Mr. He has submitted that the controversial document Exhibit A-2 which happens to be a letter also written by Ramegowda and signed by him whereunder he has asked that the amount of Rs. 745. 60 ps. be credited to the account of the respondent's brother cannot be relied upon having regard to the subsequent confirmation and the evidence of ramegowda. Mr. Rao's contention is that it is the substantive evidence given before the Enquiry Committee and before the co-operative Court supported by the earlier letter written in october 1981 reiterating the same position that is material and if any contrary version is disclosed in the earlier letter which ramegowda was alleged to have signed along with the draft, that the Committee and the Co-operative Court have rightly ignored this document. His contention therefore is that even as far as the merits are concerned, that the findings against the respondent are justified and his last submission was that once these facts are established, that the Society had to take serious view because it is virtually a case of misappropriation and falsification of accounts and that in this context the punishment so awarded was certainly in order. ( 5 ) THE respondent's learned Advocate has placed very he avyreliance on the document A-2 because he contends that this document is the most material one insofar as this was the covering letter which came along with the demand draft in question. The version of the respondent is that his brother lived in the same village as Ramegowda and that he has produced his ration card to show that he was residing with Ramegowda. According to him the petitioner's brother had taken certain fertilizers from the Society on behalf of Ramegowda and that the petitioner's brother Venkatappa is not a member of the Society. His name only appeared in the sundry debtors list and since the debt was on behalf of Ramegowda, that Ramegowda himself while forwarding the D. D. for Rs. 9,000/- sent a covering note along with a request that the amounts outstanding under the name of the respondent's brother should be adjusted against the amount tendered. Respondent's learned Advocate submits that it is not a question of the credibility of the respondent but it is the question of the evidentiary value of the documents attributed to ramegowda that is paramount in this case. Respondent's learned Advocate submits that it is not a question of the credibility of the respondent but it is the question of the evidentiary value of the documents attributed to ramegowda that is paramount in this case. He relies on one crucial fact namely that at no time did Ramegowda deny that he had sent the letter Exhibit A. He submits that once this document is attributed to Ramegowda, that the Court will have to see that the respondent who was the accountant and to whom written instructions had come from the member that the amount tendered had to be adjusted against the outstandings which were shown under Venkatappa's name, that he was fully justified in having acted on those instructions. It is his contention therefore that there can be no misconduct, no dishonesty or any falsification that has been established on the basis of this material. In sum and substance, the learned advocate submits that the authorities hitherto have been in error in having ignored the document Exhibit A-2 and the inferences that are required to be drawn from that document. It is his contention that this document alone is sufficient to clear the respondent of the charges and that if this is done, that as a necessary consequence this Court will have to quash the punishment order issued against the respondent. ( 6 ) I am conscious of the fact that it is the petitioner-Society who has moved this Court and not the respondent. That is under standable because the Appellate Tribunal had decided the matter in favour of the respondent and therefore it is the Society which is the aggrieved party. While passing final orders on the petition however this Court will have to pass orders that are in consonance with a fair and complete disposal and therefore the respondent's learned Advocate would be justified in asking for a consequential order if the contentions raised by him are liable to be upheld by the Court even though as respondent he has not prayed for any relief. ( 7 ) I do concede that the real villain of the piece in this case has been Ramegowda. ( 7 ) I do concede that the real villain of the piece in this case has been Ramegowda. It is thanks to the letter Exhibit A-2 that the respondent claims to have adjusted the amount and it is because of the subsequent letter A-3 which is also from ramegowda that the Society proceeded in the matter because ramegowda contended that he had never authorised the crediting of the amount to the respondent's brother. It is because of this letter document, that one cannot really find fault with the society for having instituted proceedings against the respondent. That however will not come in the way of the matter being fairly and correctly adjudicated. Even if the Society instituted the proceeding against him on the ground that Ramegowda contended that he ought not to have adjusted the amount to the account of his brother, the authorities who decided the enquiry and the Co-operative Court thereafter ought to have considered the correct legal position which emerges. The respondent stands condemned on the basis of Ramegowda's letters and on the basis of his evidence. The record clearly indicates that the first letter exhibit A-2 has admittedly been sent by Ramegowda to the society and the respondent had no hand in either procuring this letter or fabricating it. That letter was the one which came at the earliest point of time and that letter clearly instructs the respondent to credit the amount against Venkatappa's dues. The argument advanced on behalf of the Society is that the respondent ought to have obtained the requisite sanction from the superior officers before making the two adjustments if there were written instructions from the member. I do not see why the member was required to send such a note if he did not intend to have such an adjustment made in his brother's account. The respondent having acted in accordance with the written note, and what is more, having retained those instructions on file, the act of adjusting the amount cannot be faulted. What needs to be taken further cognizance of is that at a subsequent point of time the same person Ramegowda has virtually somersaulted and stated that he did not authorise the credit. This witness is thoroughly unreliable. What needs to be taken further cognizance of is that at a subsequent point of time the same person Ramegowda has virtually somersaulted and stated that he did not authorise the credit. This witness is thoroughly unreliable. No reliance whatsoever should have been placed on anything emanating from this witness by either the enquiry Committee, Managing Committee of the Society or the co-operative Court, particularly if this evidence was to form the basis of a punishment order against the respondent and as the facts of this case indicate, the solitary basis or the corner stone of the punishment imposed against him. One needs to take note of the fact that there were two directly contrary versions of ramegowda both in writing and having written and having signed both of them, it indicates that this witness has no sanctity for truth and if this is the calibre of the evidence that emanates from such a witness, it can never form the basis of a punishment order against the respondent. The factor that weighs heavily in favour of the respondent is the fact that the document authorising the credit to the respondent's brother's account is the first in point of time and at no stage has ramegowda disclaimed the authorship thereof. That to my mind, concludes the entire controversy. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the state of the record, it would be impossible to sustain the punishment order that was imposed against the respondent. While on the one hand, the petitioner is entitled to succeed insofar as the order passed by the Tribunal will have to be quashed for the reasons set out by me, as a necessary consequence, the order passed against the respondent would normally stand revived. It is for this reason that I have had to go a step further while examining the record and adjudicating upon the question as to whether that order is capable of being sustained. For the reasons indicated by me, the punishment order passed against the respondent will also have to be quashed and the necessary consequence thereof would be that in the first instance the petitioner-Society will have to compute and pay to the respondent the difference in salary and allowance between what he actually received and what he would have normally received had that punishment order not been passed. While doing this, it will also have to be taken into consideration that one would have to proceed on the footing that the punishment order was not in existence and the respondent would therefore be restored to the position in which he was on the date when the order of punishment was passed against him and given effect to starting from that stage onwards, the difference in emoluments due to the respondent would have to be computed and paid to him. It is also clarified that since the respondent by virtue of the order of punishment has been not only reverted in salary but in rank that it would have to be deemed that he continued in service as though no such order was passed. If the respondent in normal course was entitled to any further promotions etc. , the necessary calculations would accordingly have to be made. ( 9 ) THE petition accordingly succeeds. In the unusual facts of this case, the respondent has also succeeded and the directions issued by this Court will have to be carried out by the petitioners within an outer limit of three months from today. It is clarified that the orders passed in this petition shall have no bearing on the orders passed in the companion litigation. Since the other two petitions are also before this Court and have been argued, this Court will certainly take into consideration when the orders are passed in the other two proceedings as to what would be the effect of the present order. ( 10 ) THE petition accordingly stands disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .