A. R. TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India seeking quashment of the order passed by Board of Revenue (respondent No. 4) in Appeal No. 87-2/88 (Annexure-P / 12), thereby directing reinstatement of respondent No. 1 in service with back wages. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 was in the employment of the petitioner-Bank as Assistant Accountant and at the relevant time was working as Manager (Samiti Sevak ). The services were governed under the rules framed by the Registrar under Section 55 (1) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. On 31-1-1984, a show cause notice was given to respondent No, 1 on allegation of commission of major misconduct (Annexure-P/1 ). Enquiry was held. Another show cause notice on different charges were also given (Annexure-F / 3 ). On proof of major misconduct services were terminated by order dated 21-6-1985 (Annexure-p/5), Against this order, respondent No. 1 filed the dispute under Section 55 (2) of the M. F Co-operative Societies Act before Assistant Registrar, Co-operative societies, Mandsaur which was registered as Case No. C-1 / 85-86 (Annexure- P/8 ). The Assistant Registrar dismissed the case on 9-1-1987 (Annexure-P/10 ). Respondent no. 1 then filed first appeal before Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, ujjain (respondent No. 3 ). The appeal was dismissed on 11-2-1988 (Annexure-P/11 ). Dissatisfied, respondent No. 1 filed second appeal before Board of Revenue (respondent No. 4 ). Respondent No. 4 allowed the appeal and passed the order as noted above (Annexure-P / 12 ). This order is impugned in this writ petition, ( 3 ) I have heard Shri M. D. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Shri A. K. Sethi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Vinay Zelawat, learned government Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4. None for respondent No. 5. ( 4 ) THE Counsel for the parties admitted before me that respondent No. 1 has already been reinstated in service and back wages have been paid to him in compliance with the order Annexure-P/12. ( 5 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by respondent no. 4 (Annexure-P/12), despite the admission of charges is contrary to law. ( 5 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by respondent no. 4 (Annexure-P/12), despite the admission of charges is contrary to law. ( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 found on appreciation of the material that as regards the first show cause notice, respondent No. 1 furnished proper explanation and as regards second show cause notice, it is held that utmost it may be a case of negligence but not a case of misconduct much less major one (Para 8 and Para 10 of the impugned order ). ( 7 ) AS held in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and others, AIR 1984 SC 38 , scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is little and limited. ( 8 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any such error, which may warrant interference with the order impugned in this writ petition. The conclusion recorded in Para 8 and Para 10 of the impugned order is found to be on firm foundation and is not liable to be dislodged or demolished. No infirmity is a shown. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid petition, I find that there is, as such no case of admission of any major misconduct and respondent No. 4 committed no error in passing the order. ( 10 ) IN the circumstances, I find that this petition is devoid of merit and deserves the fate of dismissal. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY I dismiss this petition with no order as to costs. ( 12 ) SECURITY cost, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner, after due verification. Petition dismissed. .