S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ application is directed against an order dated 1. 5. 1996 as contained in Annexure "n" to the writ application. The fact that the petitioner was charge-sheeted and was placed under suspension is not in dispute. It appears from the impugned order that he did not file his written statement in respect of articles of charges. He also did not intimate the name of the witnesses and the list of documents to be relied on by him in support of his defence. An ex parte enquiry was held against the petitioner. The Board found the petitioner guilty and imposed punishment. The only question which arises for consideration in this writ application is as to whether the proviso appended to Rule 48 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules had been complied with or not. In paragraph 27 of the writ application the petitioner has, inter alia, contended that no notice had been issued to him proposing the punishment to be imposed on him and thus he had not been given an opportunity to file a representation. The said statements have been traversed in paragraph 31 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition, from a perusal whereof it appears that the same had not been denied. Thus the aforementioned allegation made by the petitioner in paragraph 27 of the writ application must be deemed to have admitted. ( 2 ) RULE 48 (f) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules reads thus :"to appoint, discharge or to dismiss or to remove employees of the society ; provided that no employee of a co-operative society shall be dismissed or removed from service except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being. heard in respect of those charges, and where it is proposed, after such inquiry, to dismiss or remove him, until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed. "as in terms of the aforementioned rules an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to make a representation as regard opposed punishment and as in this case admittedly such provision has not been complied with, the impugned order cannot be sustained. ( 3 ) MR. Basu, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 8. 4. ( 3 ) MR. Basu, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 8. 4. 1994 passed by Ruma Pal, J. in C. O. No. 17336 (W) of 1993, in terms whereof the petitioner was directed to make over all keys and documents etc. in his possession relating to the affairs of the respondent society. It has been stated by the respondent in paragraph 17 of the affidavit-in-opposition to the following effect :"in answer to paragraph 14 (c) of the petition. I say that the Hon'ble justice Ruma Pal was pleased to pass order on 8. 4. 1994 in Civil Order no. 17336 (W) of 1993 directing the petitioner to make over all keys, documents etc. in his custody relating to the affairs of the society by 11. 4. 1994 and in default the society would be at liberty to break open any lock or paid-lock in presence of the Sub-Divisional officer-Rampurhat, in whose presence the inventory should be prepared. " ( 4 ) THE said statement has been denied and disputed by the petitioner in paragraph 15 of the affidavit-in-reply which reads thus :"with reference to paragraphs 17 and 18 of the said affidavit, I deny and dispute all the allegations save and except what are matters on record and what are specifically admitted herein. I say that the keys of the said society and all relevant documents were under the custody of the Chairman of the said society. As such the question of handing over the keys does not arise at all. I say that the allegations levelled against me for not handling over the key were afterthought, pre-planned and to cast offence and irregularities committed by them upon my shoulder in an opportune moment. All other allegations, contentions contrary to the aforesaid are denied and disputed by me. " ( 5 ) KEEPING in view the aforementioned statement it is not possible for this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of withholding the valuable documents of the respondent society. ( 6 ) THE respondent society, therefore, it goes without saying, is entitled to take all such steps for recovery of any documents or any other valuable registers, Accounts Books etc. , in possession of the petitioner as is permissible in law. ( 6 ) THE respondent society, therefore, it goes without saying, is entitled to take all such steps for recovery of any documents or any other valuable registers, Accounts Books etc. , in possession of the petitioner as is permissible in law. ( 7 ) THE aforementioned controversy is not the subject-matter of this writ application and no direction in view of the statement made in paragraph 17 of the affidavit-in-opposition can be issued as against the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE impugned order as contained in annexure "n" to the writ application is set aside with a direction upon the respondent society to issue a notice of proposed punishment. ( 9 ) THE petitioner shall make a representation there against within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice, whereafter it would be open to the respondent to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. ( 10 ) IF no representation is filed within the aforementioned period, it would be open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. ( 11 ) THE writ application is allowed with the aforementioned observations. Order accordingly. .