JUDGMENT S.S. NIJJAR, J. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner joined the service as a Handloom Export in Punjab State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Limited in the year 1981. In 1990, in addition to his own duties, he was assigned the work of Production Centre, Processing House and Yarn Bank. On 31st August, 1998, he was transferred from Hoshiarpur to Shoddy Spinning Plant which was established at Humbra. The petitioner immediately joined on the transferred post. His place at Hoshiarpur was taken by another employee. On 4.7.2000, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet for not handing over the complete charge of the Production Centre at Hoshiarpur. On the basis of the Inquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, he was removed from the service, by order of the Managing Director dated 9.1.2001. Against the order of removal, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal on 6.7.2001. The order of removal was set aside by the Appellate Authority with liberty to the punishing authority to impose minor penalty. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the employer-respondent No. 1 filed revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 before the Additional Secretary Cooperation (Appeals) Punjab exercising the powers of State Government. The revision petition has been accepted and the order passed by the Appellate Authority has been set aside by order dated 10.10.2002 (Annexure P-3). 2. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 10.10.2002 by filing the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the revision petition is not maintainable under Section 69 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, no revision petition is maintainable against an order passed by the appellate authority under the Service Rules of 1995 of the respondent No.1 society. The impugned order dated 10.10.2002 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Revisional Authority is wholly without jurisdiction; and void abinitio. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Govt. Employs Co. House Building Society Ltd. vs. Dy. Registrar, Coo-op Society, Rohtak, (P&H) 1997 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 250. He further relied upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Binpalka Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. vs. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, 1992 (3) S.C.T. 395. 4. Employs Co. House Building Society Ltd. vs. Dy. Registrar, Coo-op Society, Rohtak, (P&H) 1997 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 250. He further relied upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Binpalka Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. vs. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, 1992 (3) S.C.T. 395. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no financial loss has been caused to the respondent-society and, therefore, the order of removal is not commiserate with the misconduct which has been proved. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Revisional Authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the well reasoned findings and reasons recorded by the Appellate Authority after appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, submits that these arguments would not be open to the petitioner in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Punjab State Handloom Weavers Apex Society Limited Vs. State of Punjab 1996 (1) S.C.T. 156. 6. On merits he submitted, on the basis of the averments made in the written statement, that the petitioner is wrongly claiming that no financial loss has been caused to the respondent-society. The petitioner has allowed credit purchasing of articles amounting to Rs. 2,42,100.96 and about Rs. 52,813/- are still to be recovered. This misconduct has been duly proved against the petitioner on the basis of the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer. 7. We have considered the subsections made by the learned counsel for parties. 8. We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the revision petition. An identical issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Punjab State Handloom Wavers Apex Society Limited (supra). In that case, the society had terminated the services of one of its employees. He filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority set aside the order of punishment and directed that de novo enquiry be held. Simultaneously another charge sheet was issued to the employee, on the basis of which a departmental enquiry was also held. The enquiry officer, who was common, submitted two separate enquiry reports. In the de novo enquiry and the second enquiry charges were found to be proved against the petitioner and his services were again terminated. Simultaneously another charge sheet was issued to the employee, on the basis of which a departmental enquiry was also held. The enquiry officer, who was common, submitted two separate enquiry reports. In the de novo enquiry and the second enquiry charges were found to be proved against the petitioner and his services were again terminated. The employees again filed an appeal against the orders of punishment which was dismissed. Thereafter he filed a revision petition under Section 69 before the Commissioner (Appeals) Government of Punjab. The said revision petition was dismissed in limine. The employee filled Civil Writ Petition No. 5746 of 1992 which was allowed on the ground that the Revisional Authority had passed a non-speaking order. The matter was remanded back to the Revisional Authority for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law. On remand, the Revisional Authority rejected the plea of the Society against the maintainability of the revision. On merits it was held that the punishment was dis-proportionate to the charges proved against the employee. Therefore, the punishment was reduced to stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. This order was challenged by the employer by filing a writ petition. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner-society that the revision petition filed by the employee under Section 69 of the Act was not maintainable. After considering Section 69 of the Act, the Division Bench has held as follows : “Before proceeding to consider the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apt to notice the provision contained in Section 69. It reads as under :- “69. REVISION. After considering Section 69 of the Act, the Division Bench has held as follows : “Before proceeding to consider the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apt to notice the provision contained in Section 69. It reads as under :- “69. REVISION. - The State Government and the Registrar may, suo moto or on the application of a party to a reference, call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which no appeal under Section 68 lies to the Government or to the Registrar, as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and if in any case, it appear to the Government or the Registrar that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled or revised the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, may, after giving persons affected thereby an opportunity of being head, pass such order thereon as it or he may deem it.” A perusal of the above provision shows that the State Government as well as the Registrar have been empowered to examine the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by a Society. They can do so either suo moto or on the application of a party to a reference. The power is not subject to any provision of the rules or the bye-laws. It is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the Government and the Registrar. In the very nature of things where an order has been passed by the Registrar, the power vests in the State Government.” 9. In our opinion that aforesaid observations of the Division Bench are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The revision petition had been filed by an employee of the same society which is impleaded as respondent No. 1 in the present case i.e. Punjab State Handloom Weavers Apex Cooperative Society. The Division Bench in the case of Govt. Employs Co-op Housing Building Society (supra) was dealing with an entirely different situation. The powers of Registrar had been exercised by the Deputy Registrar. It was averred that the Assistant Registrar who had exercised the powers of Deputy Registrar under the statute. It was also held that the Assistant Registrar had no power to exercise the powers of Appellate Authority. Employs Co-op Housing Building Society (supra) was dealing with an entirely different situation. The powers of Registrar had been exercised by the Deputy Registrar. It was averred that the Assistant Registrar who had exercised the powers of Deputy Registrar under the statute. It was also held that the Assistant Registrar had no power to exercise the powers of Appellate Authority. It was argued that the writ petition ought to be dismissed as the petitioner had availed the alternative remedy under Section 115 of the Haryana Cooperative Society Act. In these circumstances, it was observed that under Section 115 of the Haryana Cooperative Society Act, revision petition was maintainable only if any reference under Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Society Act is made. In case of Binpalka Co- operative Agricultural Service Society Limited (supra), the Division Bench considered the powers of the State Government under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Society Act, to entertain a revision petition against voluntary bifurcation of two societies and further decided the transfer of one of its employee to a particular society. One of the aggrieved employee filed a revision petition under Section 69 of the Act, challenging his allocation to one of these societies. The revision petition was allowed. The allocation of the employee was ordered to be changed. A writ petition was filed on the ground that the State Government had no power to exercise jurisdiction under Section 69 of the Act. Even in this case it was not held that the revision petition would not be maintainable any of the matters which fell beyond the purview of Section 68 of the Act. The Division Bench held that any order passed on the application of the particular reference against which no appeal was maintainable under Section 68 of the Act could be challenged by filing a revision petition before the Government. The judgment, however, does not lay down the proposition that the exercise of the revisional power would be limited only to cases arising out of the arbitration proceedings, as argued by Mr. Mahajan. The Division Bench in Punjab State Handloom Weavers Apex Society Limited case (supra) has clearly held that under Section 69 of the Act, the State Government as well as the Registrar have been empowered to examine the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by the society. Mahajan. The Division Bench in Punjab State Handloom Weavers Apex Society Limited case (supra) has clearly held that under Section 69 of the Act, the State Government as well as the Registrar have been empowered to examine the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by the society. They can do so either suo moto or on the application of the parties to a reference. The powers is not subject to any provision of the rules or the bye- laws. 10. In view of the clear enunciation of the law by the Division Bench in Punjab State Handloom Weavers Apex Society Limited case (supra), we have no hesitation in holding that the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 1 Society was maintainable. We are unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Revisional Authority has committed any legal error or material irregularity in allowing the revision petition. The charges have been duly proved against the petitioner. There being clear financial loss to the society, therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority was rightly set aside by the Revisional Authority. Finding no merits in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.