C. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 was an employee of the petitioner. By order dated 26. 12. 1983. petitioner-bank imposed certain punishment on him. Joint Registrar in purported exercise of its power under Section 49-A of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). set aside the order of punishment. Petitioner aggrieved by the same. preferred appeal before the Board of Revenue who, by order dated 2nd March. 1988 dismissed the appeal. Petitioner aggrieved by the same has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) SHORN of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that after the order of punishment was passed against respondent no. 3, he did not raise any dispute as contemplated under Section 65 (2) of the Act. Moreover, the Joint Registrar in purported exercise of the powers under Section 49-A of the Act, annulled the decision of the petitioner-bank imposing punishment on respondent No. 3. It is the assertion of the petitioner that before annulling the decision of the petitioner-bank. Joint Registrar has not given any notice to the petitioner and this fact has not been controverted by respondent No. 3. ( 3 ) MR. Mahindra Shrivastava, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that in view of the availability of remedy to an employee under section 55 (2) of the Act, Joint Registrar ought not to have exercised its power under Section 49-A of the Act. Inspite of service of notice, no body has appeared on behalf of the respondents. In any view of the matter, it is the stand of Shri Shrivastava that before exercising the power under section 49-A of the Act, it was incumbent upon the Joint Registrar to call upon the Committee from the officer concerned to show cause, but petitioner was never given any show-cause notice by the Joint Registrar. It, appears that the Joint Registrar while passing the order has not adverted to this aspect of the matter. Board of Revenue also in the impugned order although has referred to the submission of the petitioner that in view of availability of remedy under Section 55 of the Act, Joint Registrar ought not to have exercised its Jurisdiction under Section 49-A of the Act. but while deciding the appeal has not given any finding on the aforesaid issue. Board of Revenue also in the impugned order although has referred to the submission of the petitioner that in view of availability of remedy under Section 55 of the Act, Joint Registrar ought not to have exercised its Jurisdiction under Section 49-A of the Act. but while deciding the appeal has not given any finding on the aforesaid issue. On this ground alone, the orders of the Joint Registrar as also the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) IN the result, writ petition is allowed. Notice dated 25. 10. 1985 (Annexure C) order dated 28,3. 1985 (Annexure D) and order dated 2. 3. 1988 (Annexure F) of the Board of Revenue are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Joint Registrar who, after giving opportunity to the petitioner and respondent No. 3 shall take decision in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed. .