Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the validity of the impugned judgment Annexure-P/6 dated 8/11/2006 passed by M. P. State Cooperative Tribunal Bhopal (in short the Tribunal) whereby the appeal of respondent No. 1 was allowed and the revision petition filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed by a common judgment. ( 2. ) THE facts leading to the present petition is that during the year 1992 to 1995 the petitioner was posted as Samiti Prabandhak in Cooperative Society, Bagaha, Distt. Satna. Respondent No. 2 was serving on the post of Salesman in the said society. It was found that there was defalcation of Rs. 65. 763. 15 in the said society. Thereafter petitioner was issued a charge sheet on 5. 5. 1995. Refuting the charges the petitioner submitted his reply and Enquiry Officer was appointed and domestic enquiry was held against the petitioner. In the departmental enquiry the petitioner was issued final show cause notice on 16/11/1995 and ultimately he has been removed from the services. ( 3. ) THE petitioner thereafter filed a dispute case before the, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 55 (2) of the M. P. Cooperative Societies Act (in short the Act ). Respondent No. 1 filed written statement and issues were framed. After recording the evidence, Assistant Registrar passed an order holding that the petitioner was negligent towards his duty as a result of which it was directed to reinstate him without back wages. The Assistant Registrar while deciding issues No. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 9 on the basis of the evidence came to hold that the departmental enquiry was faulty. The decision of the Assistant Registrar dated 11/6/1998 is Annexure-P/3. ( 4. ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment passed by Assistant Registrar, respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar which was registered as Appeal No. 77-52/98 and the Joint Registrar vide its order dated 22/10/1998 (Annexure-P/4) modified the order of the Assistant Registrar to the extent that the petitioner was directed to be punished by stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. ( 5. ( 5. ) AGAINST the order passed by Joint Registrar Anexure-P/4 respondent No. 1 filed second appeal before the Tribunal and the present petitioner filed revision petition assailing that part of the order of the joint Registrar by which the interference was made by the said authority in the judgment of the Assistant Registrar by which the petitioner was directed to be reinstated without back wages. The joint Registrar interfered in the quantum of punishment and substituted the punishment by withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect. ( 6. ) THE Tribunal allowed the appeal of respondent No. 1 and dismissed the revision petition of the present petitioner by the impugned judgment Annexure-P/6. ( 7. ) IT has been contended by Shri Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the Tribunal in para-7 of its judgment has held that it is not a case of the present petitioner that the enquiry was faulty and he was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing and defending himself. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that factually this finding is incorrect and in that regard he has invited my attention to para-11 of the judgment of the Assistant Registrar deciding Issue No. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 9 and has contended that the Assistant Registrar specifically held that the departmental enquiry was not in accordance with law. It has been also contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that since it has been held by all the Courts below that the defalcation of Rs. 65,763. 15 was made by respondent No. 2, therefore, the petitioner, since he was only a Manager in the bank, at the most can be said to be negligent towards his duty. It has been further contended by learned Counsel that respondent No. 2-Gyanendra Singh submitted an affidavit and also deposited the entire amount. In these facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal upholding the decision of respondent No. 1 removing the services of the petitioner cannot be allowed to remain stand. ( 8. ) PER contra, Shri B. S. Trivedi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, argued in support of the impugned judgment. ( 9. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed and the matter is required to be sent back to the Tribunal. ( 10. ( 8. ) PER contra, Shri B. S. Trivedi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, argued in support of the impugned judgment. ( 9. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed and the matter is required to be sent back to the Tribunal. ( 10. ) ON going through the findings arrived at by the Assistant Registrar in its judgment Annexure-P/3 dated 11/6/1998 while deciding Issue No. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 9, it is gathered that in suo motu the management initiated the departmental enquiry and, therefore, a prior permission was required to be obtained from Sub Committee in terms of Rule No. 60 (2 ). The Assistant Registrar has also recorded a finding that on going through the enquiry report it is perceptible that no explanation was sought from the present petitioner. It was also found that opportunity to lead evidence was not provided to the petitioner and his statement was also not taken. The departmental enquiry was conducted in superficial manner. The Assistant Registrar, on the basis of the material placed before it, came to hold that the petitioner is found to be negligent towards his duty, as a result of which it was directed to reinstate him without back wages. ( 11. ) IN the appeal before the joint Registrar filed by respondent No. 1, it appears that the judgment of the Assistant Registrar was interfered to the extent of the quantum of punishment only. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 could not point out that the findings of the Assistant Registrar holding the departmental enquiry to be faulty was set aside by the Joint Registrar. In this view of the matter, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal in para-7 in its judgment holding that it is not a case of the petitioner that enquiry was faulty and that he was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing and defending his case, appears to be factually incorrect and perverse. Since the said finding is perverse, the judgment of the Tribunal cannot be allowed to remain stand and the same is set aside and the case is remanded back for passing a fresh judgment. Since the said finding is perverse, the judgment of the Tribunal cannot be allowed to remain stand and the same is set aside and the case is remanded back for passing a fresh judgment. Since I have quashed the judgment of the Tribunal and remanding the matter to the Tribunal, I am not deciding the other points which are raised by learned Counsel for the respondents. ( 12. ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition is allowed. The impugned judgment Annexure-P/6 dated 8/11/2000 is hereby quashed and the Tribunal is hereby directed to redecide the appeal of respondent No. 1 as well as revision petition of the petitioner on the basis of the material available on record. Needless to emphasis, the petitioner shall be placed in the same status on which the judgment passed by the Tribunal on 8/11/2000. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the parties are hereby directed to bear their own costs.