Judgment :- J.B. Koshy, J. The appellant who is the President of a Milk Producers' Co-operative Society challenges Ext. P7 order of the Deputy Director of Dairy Development, Ernakulam passed by him exercising his powers as joint Registrar under R.176 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules)'. The society initiated disciplinary action against the second respondent employee of the society (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee'). Ext. P1 is the charge sheet issued against her. In pursuance of the charges, a domestic enquiry was conducted. Employee remained exparte. She filed an application for adjournment as correctness of her suspension pending enquiry is the subject-matter of a writ petition before this Court. Her suspension was rescinded by the Joint Registrar under R.176 of the Rules and the society has challenged the same before the Court. Her adjournment application was rejected and an enquiry was conducted exparte. Since the misconducts alleged against her were proved, it was decided to terminate her services and accordingly a resolution was passed on 29.1.1997 dismissing her from service from the date of suspension. The main charges levelled against the employee was that she misappropriated money forging the local sales bill and that caused loss to the society by wrongly recording the price for measured milk of some producers under the name of some other producers. The employee filed a petition before the Joint Registrar and the Joint Registrar interfered with the decision of the sub-committee resolving to terminate the services of the employee invoking the powers under R.176 of the Rules. That was challenged in this O.P. The learned Single Judge set aside Ext. P7. The learned judge held as follows: "When a delinquent employee moved the Registrar concerned under R.176 in a disciplinary matter, it is incumbent on the Registrar to consider the charges, the enquiry report, the evidence on record and the contentions. Merely because the society fails to take action against the Secretary who is in charge of the official affairs of the society, a delinquent cannot be said to be innocent. A reading of Ex t. P7 shows that the first respondent has not adverted to the above details. That itself is sufficient reason for quashing Ext. P7." (para 3) After quashing Ext. A reading of Ex t. P7 shows that the first respondent has not adverted to the above details. That itself is sufficient reason for quashing Ext. P7." (para 3) After quashing Ext. P1, the learned judge found that the enquiry was conducted exparte and directed the society to conduct the enquiry afresh with participation of the employee and also directed that she could be paid subsistence allowance due to her for the period of past suspension as well as continued suspension till the completion of the disciplinary enquiry. It is submitted by the appellant society that after setting aside Ext. P7 the court only can direct the Joint Registrar to consider the matter and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, or to affirm the dismissal order leaving it to the employee's option to challenge her dismissal in the appropriate forum. It is further submitted that no grounds are made out for interference under R.176 of the Rules. It was also pointed out that the question regarding violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the domestic enquiry was never argued before the joint Registrar and it was not considered in Ext. P7 order. Therefore, that question should not have been considered by the learned judge. 2. R.176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules 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 ultra vires 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." 3. First question to be considered is the jurisdiction of the Joint Registrar in dealing with the resolution passed for taking disciplinary action against the employee. First question to be considered is the jurisdiction of the Joint Registrar in dealing with the resolution passed for taking disciplinary action against the employee. A reading of R.176 should show that joint Registrar can rescind the resolution only when it appears that (1) it is ultra vires of the objects of the society: (2) it is against the provisions of the Act, Rules, Bye-laws; (3) it is against any direction or instructions issued by the Department; (4) it is calculated to disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the society; or (5) it is contrary to the better interest of the society. Talking disciplinary action against an erring employee is not intended to disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the society or cannot be said to be contrary to the better interest of the society. Nor it can be said that it is ultra vires of the objects of the society. Then, the only consideration that can be looked into is that whether action was against any Act, Rules or Bye-laws of the society. 4. In Bhaskaran v. Deputy Registrar (1981 Lab 1C 1512): President v. Project Officer (1981 KLT SN 14) etc. it has been held that R.176 does not extend in matters of disciplinary proceedings. However, in P.S. Co-op. Society v. Rugmini Amma (1996 (1) KLT 100), a Division Bench of this Court held the view that R.176 would apply even to disciplinary proceedings. All the decisions in this regard were considered by another Division Bench of this Court in K.P. Chithambaran v. Registrar of Cooperative & Ors. (1996(1)KLJ752). K.G. Balakrishnan, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Division Bench held as follows: The learned Government Pleader submitted that in the matter of disciplinary proceedings, the employees have been given 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 Co-operative 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. 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 employees 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". After holding so, in that particular case, it was found that there was an infraction of R.198 of the Co-operative Societies Rules and after agreeing with the Division Bench decision in 1996 (1) KLT 100 held that if the order of removal of an employee from service was passed by the Board of Directors instead of the President of the Cooperative Bank who was the competent authority it will be an infraction of R.198 of the Co-operative Societies Rules and if a resolution is passed on that basis the Registrar can consider such matters under R.176. In this case, the Registrar mainly interfered with the dismissal because punishment was not proportionate to the offence committed and the employee was not given opportunity to correct himself. Specific violation of any of the provisions of the Act or Rules are not pointed out in Ext. P7 order. The Registrar under R.176 has no power to consider the adequacy of punishment of findings of the enquiry officer. He cannot also sit in appeal over the findings of enquiry committee or scrutinise the enquiry proceedings. He can only consider whether resolution passed is against the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder or Bye-laws. In a proceeding under R.176, Joint Registrar can certainly examine whether R.198 or any other provisions of the Act or rules or Bye-laws were violated or not, while taking disciplinary action notwithstanding the right of appeal or any other alternative remedy. In fact, it is a statutory duty of the Joint Registrar. It is averred in the O.P. that his appeal was already rejected. After amendment of the Act in 1997, an employee can also approach the arbitrator for disciplinary proceedings (See S.69(2)(d). In view of the amendment of S.69 by Act 15/97 earlier decisions like Sankaran v. Dy. In fact, it is a statutory duty of the Joint Registrar. It is averred in the O.P. that his appeal was already rejected. After amendment of the Act in 1997, an employee can also approach the arbitrator for disciplinary proceedings (See S.69(2)(d). In view of the amendment of S.69 by Act 15/97 earlier decisions like Sankaran v. Dy. Registrar (1975 KLT 861) regarding non-maintainability of disputes relating to disciplinary action under S.69 of the Act are no more applicable. 5. One of the grounds mentioned in Ext. P7 to interfere in the order of dismissal is that second respondent was retrospective by dismissed. It is well settled law that an employee can be dismissed only prospectively and not retrospectively. (Nepal Chandra Guchalt v. District Magistrate (1986 IILLJ 71), But, it has been held by the courts that retrospective order will not be void but it will be deemed to have been effective from the date of dismissal, ie., prospectively (Sudir Rajan Haldar v. State of West Bengal -1961II LLJ 283). It is true that under R.198(6) of the rules, a Secretary is entitled to subsistence allowance from the date of suspension till the date of dismissal. If subsistence allowance is not paid, the Registrar can given a direction and if the directions are not obeyed, he can take action against the society under various provisions including S.32 of the Co-operative Societies Act. But for setting aside the resolution passed for taking disciplinary proceedings, Joint Registrar has to consider whether the resolution or the disciplinary action taken is passed in violation of the provisions of the Act, Rules or Regulations and there should be a finding to that effect in the order. In the absence of such a finding, Ext. P7 order was correctly set aside by the learned judge though for other reasons, and that was not appealed against also. 6. When Ext. P7 order is challenged by the society, this court cannot direct the society to conduct fresh enquiry after setting aside Ext. P7 order. If Ext. P7 goes, the dismissal order will stand until it is set aside, by an appropriate authority. Si nee the Joint Registrar did not consider the matter within the limits of his jurisdiction vested in him under R.176, the Joint Registrar should have been directed to reconsider the matter. P7 order. If Ext. P7 goes, the dismissal order will stand until it is set aside, by an appropriate authority. Si nee the Joint Registrar did not consider the matter within the limits of his jurisdiction vested in him under R.176, the Joint Registrar should have been directed to reconsider the matter. Since the Joint Registrar did not consider the matter properly, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, we direct the first respondent to consider the matter afresh according to law in the light of the observations in this judgment after hearing both parties. This will not also prevent the employee from approaching under the amended S.69 of the Co-operative Societies Act against disciplinary action. The impugned judgment of the learned single judge is modified to the above extent. The Writ Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.