JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. As per the assertion made in the petition, the petitioner was appointed after due selection and recruitment on the post of Manager vide order dated 10.7.1979 and was confirmed on the said post later on. The appointment order was issued by Jodhpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jodhpur with posting as Manager, Rohicha Kala Consumer Co-operative Society. Since the appointing authority is Central Co-operative Society and it exercises the power of transfer and giving appointment to Manager within its own territorial jurisdiction at different co-operative societies, it is in that contingency of the service that the petitioner came to be posted at Sikarpura Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Sikarpura. 3. While the petitioner was posted at Sikarpura, he was relieved by order dated 12.6.1993 stating that he has made interpolation in the cashbook, prepared false vouchers and committed embezzlement of cash and after taking resolution from the Managing Committee, he has been relieved from his service from the post of Manager. 4. Against this order, an appeal was preferred before Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies wherein notice was issued by the Deputy Registrar and the operation of Annexure-2 was stayed under the provisions of Rajasthan Co- operative Societies Act, 1965 read with Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966. 5. Against the staying of operation of the impugned order dated 12.6.1993, the respondent No. 4 Sikarpura Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Sikarpura filed a revision which was dismissed by the Additional Registrar on 28.7.1994. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Registrar was rejected holding that the appeal lies to he Executive Officer of the Bank and not to the Deputy Registrar. 6. After this order, the appeal was preferred before the Executive Officer of the Bank challenging the order dated 12.6.1993 on 14.12.1994. 7. The Executive Officer made an order appointing the petitioner as Manager to Guda Vishnoian Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. The petitioner joined his duties at the said Samiti on 15.12.1994. However, the executive committee of the said samiti did not allot any work to the petitioner nor they allowed him to sign the attendance register. The Executive Officer of the appointing bank issued letter dated 9.6.1995 to Guda Vishnoian Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. for giving charge to the petitioner. Still the charge was not given. However, the executive committee of the said samiti did not allot any work to the petitioner nor they allowed him to sign the attendance register. The Executive Officer of the appointing bank issued letter dated 9.6.1995 to Guda Vishnoian Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. for giving charge to the petitioner. Still the charge was not given. The said representation was made before the Executive Officer once again and the same was not decided within the stipulated period. 8. However, on 17.8.1995, the Executive Officer of the appointing Bank directed that the petitioner be sent for training from 21.8.1995 in which his posting was shown to be at Samiti Guda Vishnoian. The petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 17.8.1995, joined the training and after completing the training period, gave his joining to the Chairman, Guda Vishnoian Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. However, the same was not complied with. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition was filed. 10. The reply on behalf of the respondent bank was filed stating that since the appointment was given to the petitioner at Guda Vishnoian Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. by way of interim order passed in the appeal before the Deputy Registrar and that appeal has been dismissed, the interim order did not survive and the petitioner cannot claim posting at the place for which he is seeking mandamus. About the pending representation, it was stated that the same has been decided on 1.4.1995 after filing of the petition in which it was stated that his services were terminated by Sikarpura Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. 11. The stand taken by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that the petitioner is not an employee of the Jodhpur Central Co-operative Bank but is an employee of the concerned Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. It is stated on behalf of respondent No. 4 Sikarpura Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. that the impugned orders Annexures 2 and 3 are not termination orders because the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. does not possess the powers to terminate the services but it is only the relieving order because the incumbent is not an employee of the Sikarpura Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. 12. The fact that the control about posting and transfer vest in the Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. is not disputed and doubted as Annexure-1 appointment order has been issued by respondent Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank. The petitioner was initially appointed at Rohicha Kallan Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. within Panchayat Samiti, Luni. At the time the impugned order Annexure-2 was passed, the petitioner was working at Sikarpura Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. and subsequently the order was passed for appointing him at Guda Vishnoian Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. The Annexure-2 which has been passed in pursuance of the resolution Annexure-3 dated 12.6.1983 reads as under:- 13. Apparently, the order refers to the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner, as noticed above, and is direct foundation of the order dated 12.6.1993. In these circumstances, the order dated 12.6.1993 cannot but be punitive. 14. It is rather strange that neither the Bank nor the counsel for respondent Sikarpura Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. is prepared for responsibility of stating that after this order, the petitioner continues to be in service or is not in service. Except each throwing the yoke to other by disowning to be employer of petitioner, and each one telling that he has not terminated the service, none is prepared to categorically state that petitioner ever ceased to be in employment. 15. Examining from both the sides, only one conclusion is possible that since the impugned order Annexure-2 dated 12.6.1993 has been made admittedly without holding any enquiry into the alleged misconduct after notice to the petitioner and only on the basis of inspection alleged to have been conducted by the management of Sikarpura Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd., the same cannot be sustained. It cannot be doubted and disputed that said order had affected the petitioner adversely. 16. In this connection, the averments made in the petition reads as under:- "A perusal of the impugned order Annexure-3 and the Resolution Annexure-3 makes it clear that the same are based on alleged misconduct and before taking the resolution and issuing the order for relieving the petitioner no enquiry and no notice, whatsoever was given to me as well as he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. In fact, the order Annexure-2 is to terminate the services of the petitioner on the basis of the alleged misconduct because since then he is not getting even a single penny in the name of salary." 17. The reply submitted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 about these allegations read as under:- "3. That para 3 of the writ petition is emphatically denied. It is submitted with all respect that during the course of inspection of records by the President of Samiti, it has been found gross irregularities in the records as in Cash Book and other books of accounts, on the part of the petitioner, which ultimately resulted to a financial loss to the Samiti to a great extent and consequently, the Board of Direction in its meeting dated 12.6.93 has arrived at a conclusion and finally decided by order dated 12.6.93 to relieve the petitioner in the interest of Samiti as well as public interest at large. Thus, the order dated 12.6.93 has rightly been passed." 18. Apparently, there is no denial of the fact that before issuing the orders Annexures-2 and 3, for relieving the petitioner, no enquiry was conducted, no notice was given to him as well as no opportunity of hearing was given to him. In view thereof, the impugned orders Annexure-2 and 3 cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. 19. Whether the orders are considered to be merely relieving order or termination order, the orders having been passed in breach of principles of natural justice, the petitioner must be deemed to be in continuous service on quashing of the aforesaid orders. In view thereof, the impugned orders Annexure-2 and 3 cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. 19. Whether the orders are considered to be merely relieving order or termination order, the orders having been passed in breach of principles of natural justice, the petitioner must be deemed to be in continuous service on quashing of the aforesaid orders. Since long time has elapsed and the petitioner has been directed to run from pillar to post and Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. exercises its control in the matter of giving appointment and transfer in respect of Managers within the region over which it exercises control, I deem it apposite to direct the competent authorities of Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank to give an appropriate posting to the petitioner and see that the petitioner's emoluments during the period, when he has been sent without terminating his services directly, if the orders Annexures 2 and 3 are considered to be termination order and if the said orders are treated to be merely relieving orders, then too, he has not been paid salary during this period while remaining in service, must work out to make payment of emoluments for this period. 20. However, it is made clear that the charges in Annexures 2 and 3 are of serious nature and if the competent officer desires to proceed against the petitioner for holding an enquiry against him into the aforesaid charges, such enquiry may be inniated within three months from receipt of this order or production of its certified copy. If the enquiry is initiated within three months, the arrears of emoluments shall be held in abeyance during the outcome of the enquiry but he shall be allowed emoluments as per his status in service. If the disciplinary authority decides to put the petitioner under suspension during enquiry, the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance as per Rules. Such enquiry, if any, shall be completed within six months from the date of its initiation.Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.Order accordingly. *******