S. K. DUBEY, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has challanged the order of the Board of Revenue (Annexure-P/11) dated 3 7-108 whereby the order passed in appeal No 28-5-85 preferred against the order dated 9-4-1985 (Annexure-P/10)passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies in case No. 77-112/82 wherein the order of Assistant Registrar passed in case No. 2 80 (Annexure-P/a), betul on 11-9-1982 was set aside and the order of termination of the petitioner services dated 6-5-1980 was quashed directing the petitioner to be reinstated with backwages. ( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this petition are thus i the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Accountant in the respondent Bank on 30-7-l976. Thereafter, the petitioner vide order dated 19-8-1978 (Annexure-P/2) was appointed temporarily in the regular pay-scale of Rs. 110-5-2 0-EB-6-270-0 300-15-300 of accountant. On a complaint made by one Jairam Gujia, a charge-sheet dated 18-5-1975 was issued to the petitioner as the auditor found petitioner guilty of with drawing the amount of rs 2 000/-by putting a false thumb impression of Gujia, petitioner denied the charge and explained the circumstances. A showcase notice proposing punishment was issued to petitioner. In reply to show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted that the petitioner or neither played any fraud no committed any misappropriat'on or embezzelment. The petitioner's case does not fall within the ambit of bye-law 40 (i) nor the act of the petitioner amounts to a major mis-conduct. The Chairman of the Bank after considering all the material did not find petitioner guilty, however, petitioner ordered of transfer. The Staff Committee on going through the report of the enquiry and material on record, took a decision on 6-2-1980 Vide Annexure-P/6 of terminating the services of the petitionor by giving him one month's wages in lieu of notice. The petitioner raised a dispute under Section 55 (2) before the Assistant Registrar. Co-operative Societies, who vide order dated 10-9-1992 held the order of termination as legal and proper. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 77 before the Joint Registrar, co-operative Societies who held that the enquiry as illegal and improper not in conformity with the procedure laid down, and further held that the petitioner was entitled for 3 months' notice, therefore. set aside the order of The Assistant Registrar and quashed the order of termination. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 77 before the Joint Registrar, co-operative Societies who held that the enquiry as illegal and improper not in conformity with the procedure laid down, and further held that the petitioner was entitled for 3 months' notice, therefore. set aside the order of The Assistant Registrar and quashed the order of termination. In compliance of the order the petitioner was taken on duty w. e. f. 30-5-1985, The respondent bank preferred a second appeal before the Board of revenue, which was allowed holding that the initial appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary. As no material was produced to show that the petitioner was made permanent on the post, therefore, the petitioner being purely temporary termination of his service after giving one month notice pay in lieu of notice was proper. The Board of Revenue also held the departmantal enquiry as legal and proper observing that the statement of petitioner was recorded on 17-4-1979 and on that very day, statements of other witnesses were recorded and after issuing a notice to show-cause the petitioner's service were terminated. ( 3 ) SHRI M. S Shrod, counsel for the petitioner and Shri A, G Dhande counsel for the respondent Bank were heard. Written submissions also perused ( 4 ) THE petitioner contends that vida order dated 9-8-1978 the petitioner was appointed in regular pay scale who continued to work as such till his services were terminated. Therefore, the finding of the Board of Revenue that the petitioner was a temporary employee, there is no order of appointing the petitioner permanent or as a regular employee is perverse. Appointment in regular pay-scale is not disputed by the Respondent Bank. Rule 16 of madbya Pradesh Zila Sahkari Bank Karmachan Sewa (Niyojan Nihardhan tatha Unki Karya Stithi) Niyam deals with the case of a probationer. The petitioner was not a probationer. Hence, his services could not have been dispensed with by one month notice or pay in lieu thereof. Rule 20 relates to publication of gradation list of permanant and temporary employees in reactive posts. Rule 56 enumerates major and minor mis-conducts and punishment for them is provided iunrule 37, Rule 5s prescribes the procedure for punishment. Hence, his services could not have been dispensed with by one month notice or pay in lieu thereof. Rule 20 relates to publication of gradation list of permanant and temporary employees in reactive posts. Rule 56 enumerates major and minor mis-conducts and punishment for them is provided iunrule 37, Rule 5s prescribes the procedure for punishment. ( 5 ) RULE 62 provides for termination of service of a temporaty employee on one month notice or pay in lieu thereof, while a permanent employee, on three months notice or pay in iieu thsreof. Now, it is well settled that a clause empowering an employer to terminate the service of a permanent or regular employee after giving notice in accordance with the statutory terms of service is arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act See AIR 1986 SC 1571 Central Inland water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another v. Brejo Nath Ganguly and another and AIR 1991 SC 103 Delhi Transport Corporation v. B T, C. Mazdoor congress and Ors. The petitioner was not temporary but was a regular employee, hence, in the opinion of the Court, the petitioner's employment could not have been terminated by order of discharge simplicitor on payment of one month pay in lieu of notice. ( 6 ) BESIDES, admittedly the order of termination was passed because the petitioner was found guilty of the mis-conduct committed of which the enquiry was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Rules nor it was in confarmity wiith the principles of natural justice During the course of hearing, the respondent/bank was directed to produce the record of the enquiry. but. no such record was produced except show-cause notice and its reply. The Assistant Registrar. but. no such record was produced except show-cause notice and its reply. The Assistant Registrar. Co-operative Societies, has also not recorded any finding on the legality and propriety of the enquiry, The joint Registrar has held the departmental enquiry illgal The Board of revenue though in para 6 has observed that perusal of ths record shows that the statement of the petitioner was recorded on 17-4-1979 and on that very day, the statements of other witnesses were recorded, a show-cause notice was issued of which the petitioner submitted a reply, therefore, reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner The finding recorded by the Board of Revenue is perverse as there is no record of enquiry nor the bank produced the record before the Co-operative Courts below. The bank was directed to produce the record before this Court, but, the same was not produced. On the other hand, the respondent Bank submitted written arguments alongwith the report of the auditor A document is also produced that after the order of the Joint Registrar in appeal the petitioner was reinstated after reinstatment the petitioner again committed some embezzlement. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the circumstances and the facts of the case I am of the opinion that this matter should go back before the Joint Registrar co-operative Societies, where the respondent Bank shall produce the record of the departmental enquiry held against the petitioner On that the Joint registrar shall decide whether 'he enquiry is legal and proper and is in conformity with the principles of natural justice If the enquiry is held illegal and improper, the Joint Registrar shall give an opportunity to the respondent Bank to prove mis-conduct The respondent/bank may also place and prove the circumstances that reinstatement of the petitioner would not be conductive and would not be in the interest of the Bank as the petitioner, was holding the post of confidence and trust. The petitioner shall also be- afforded opportunity to lead evidence, the joint registrar shall decide the case afresh in accordance with law within an outer limit of four months from the date of appearance of the parties The parties shall appear before the Joint Registrar, Co-operaiive Societies on 1-11-1995. ( 8 ) IN the result, the order of Board of Revenue is quashed. ( 8 ) IN the result, the order of Board of Revenue is quashed. The case is sent back in the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law as directed. No costs. Security amount, if any be refunded to the petitioner. .