Judgment :- Balakrishnan, J. Petitioner was working as a peon in the second respondent Co-operative Bank. In 1985 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and an order was passed by the Board of Directors to remove the petitioner from service, and the President of the Co-op. Bank was directed to implement the order of removal of the petitioner from service. Petitioner came to know of these developments and he submitted a representation evidently under R.176 of the Co-operative Societies Rules praying that resolution passed against the petitioner for removing him from service was violative of R.198 and therefore, the Registrar should rescind the resolution. Petitioner received a reply - Ext. P8, from the Registrar informing him that Registrar has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter since it was a dispute between an employee and employer. Petitioner challenges Ext. P8. 2. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter statement contending that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to consider the question of disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the original petition is not maintainable. They have also stated that the removal of the petitioner was justified in the circumstances of the case. 3. We heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The counsel for the petitioner contended that under R.198, the authority competent to impose serious penalties against persons like the petitioner is the President and in the instant case, the decision to remove the petitioner from service was taken by the Board of Directors, and it is pointed out that infact the Board of Directors is the appellate forum wherein the order imposing serious penalties could be challenged. Petitioner's counsel submits that as the initial order is passed by the appellate authority, petitioner is denied of his valuable right of appeal. Petitioner has also a case that as per Rule 198(1)(h) dismissal from service alone could be imposed against an employee and removal from service is not one of the punishments given in R.198(1), of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The counsel contended that there is clear distinction between removal from service and dismissal from service. We do not propose to express any thing on this aspect. 4. Petitioner's case is that as the order-imposing penalty on the petitioner is violative of certain rules of Co-operative Societies Rules, he has got a remedy to approach the Registrar under R.176. R.176 reads as follows: "176. We do not propose to express any thing on this aspect. 4. Petitioner's case is that as the order-imposing penalty on the petitioner is violative of certain rules of Co-operative Societies Rules, he has got a remedy to approach the Registrar under R.176. R.176 reads as follows: "176. Registrar's power to rescind resolution: Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of a registered society, it shall be competent for the Registrar to rescind any resolution of any meeting of any society or of the committee of any society, if it appears to him that such resolution is ultravires of the objects of the society, or is against the provisions of the Act. Rules. Bye-laws or of any direction or instructions issued by the Department, or calculated to disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the society or is contrary to the better interest of the Society" (Emphasis supplied) R.176 shows that if the resolution passed by the registered society is violative of any of the Act or rules, there solution. There is a line of decision to the effect that power of-Registrar under R.176 does not extent to matters of disciplinary proceedings. (See President S. C. V. V. Co-op. Society v. Project Officer 1981 KLT Short Notes 14 and T. Bhaskaran v. Dy. Registrar 1981 Lab. I. C. 1512). However, in Padmakumari v. ISRO Employees Co-op. Society (1989 (2) KLT 170), another learned single judge of this Court held that R.176 is available to check the wanton discharge or termination of service of the employees. A Division Bench of this Court in P.S. Co-op. Society v. Rugmini Amma (1996 (1) KLT 100) held the view that R.176 would apply even to disciplinary proceedings. The Court held, "There is nothing in R.176 to suggest that power under the Rule cannot be invoked if resolution relates to disciplinary actions against any employee. Nor is there any need to read such a rider into the rule. Even if the decision relates to disciplinary sphere of its employees, the Registrar can never-the-less invoke powers under R.176 provided the resolution offends any provision of law or is against any direction issued by the department or is contrary to society's interest." 5. Nor is there any need to read such a rider into the rule. Even if the decision relates to disciplinary sphere of its employees, the Registrar can never-the-less invoke powers under R.176 provided the resolution offends any provision of law or is against any direction issued by the department or is contrary to society's interest." 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in the matter of disciplinary proceedings, the employees have been given the right of appeal under R.198 and as specific provisions have been made in the rule itself, the employees shall not be allowed to invoke the general powers of the Registrar contained in R.176. Normally, the power of the Registrar under R.176 should be invoked to tone up the administration of Cooperative Societies and if there is any serious infraction of any act or rules, the Registrar is given authority to intervene and correct such mistakes. This is a general power given to the Registrar for a smooth and effective functioning of the Co-operative Societies. In the matter of disciplinary proceedings, if the employees have got right of appeal, the proper remedy of the employee is to file appeal against such orders. It is quite possible that even in the disciplinary proceedings there may be violation of certain rules. But when the employees have got a right of appeal it is for them to challenge the order before the appellate authority and they can contend before the appellate authority that there was violation of the rules. 6. In the instant case, the order of removal of the petitioner from service was passed by the Board of Directors instead of the President of the Co-operative Bank, who was the competent authority. This could be characterised as an infraction of R.198 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, and if a resolution is passed on that basis the Registrar can consider the matter under R.176. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in P.S.Co-op. Society v. Rugmini Amma (1996 (1) KLT 100). 7. In the result, we quash Ext. P8 and direct the Registrar to reconsider the representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders having due regard to the observation made by us. The O.P. is disposed of as above.