C. L. PANGARKAR J. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This is an application for review of the judgment delivered in Civil Revision Application No. 930 of 2000. 2. Review application has been filed by the applicant in Civil Revision. A few facts may be stated thus: Applicant is a defendant in civil suit instituted by the non applicant against it seeking an injunction restraining it from recovering an amount from his salary. The applicant is a Society which runs a school while the non applicant is a Clerk working in the said school. It was the duty of the said employee to take care of the grants received from the Government, to draw the amount for running the school and the society. Defendant No.2 is the Head Master of the said school. The school receives two grants namely salary grant and non salary grant. For the said two grants two separate accounts are maintained in the bank. Those accounts have been opened in Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank. It is contended by the plaintiff that many a times no intimation about the disbursement of the non salary grant is given to the society and the amount is directly credited in the account. On 05.10.96 the plaintiff went to the Cooperative Bank to make an enquiry with regard to the balance in account. He was told that there was a balance of amount of Rs.1,13,319.50 Ps. The amount was in excess of what the plaintiff expected and, therefore, he inquired with the clerk whether the non salary grant is credited to the said account and he was told that the grant has been received from the Government. The plaintiff, therefore, brought this fact to the notice of the Head Master Shri P. N. Borkar. Upon directions of Shri Borkar the plaintiff prepared certain cheques in the name of the creditors of the school. Subsequently it was found that the said grant of Rs. 1,00,000/- was received for the year 1996-97 and he again made a request to the Bank Manager to verify the accounts and it was told that sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been wrongly credited by the bank in the account of defendant No.2 towards non salary grant. This was again brought to the notice of defendant No. 2. 1,00,000/- was received for the year 1996-97 and he again made a request to the Bank Manager to verify the accounts and it was told that sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been wrongly credited by the bank in the account of defendant No.2 towards non salary grant. This was again brought to the notice of defendant No. 2. It is contended that this had happened only due to the negligence on the part of the bank employees and they refused to correct the account. It is also the contention that the bank, therefore, sought to recover from the defendant No.1 society a sum of Rs.28,767/- towards the interest on the amount used by the defendant society. 3. The plaintiff thereafter received a notice from the defendant No.1 seeking his explanation as to why an amount of Rs.28,767/- be not recovered from him and the Head Master Shri Borkar. The explanation of plaintiff was rejected and the society decided to deduct the amount from the salary of the plaintiff, hence the plaintiff has instituted this suit for declaration that plaintiff is not liable to pay sum of Rs.14,383/- and for injunction prohibiting the defendant from deducting the same from the salary. 4. Defendant No.1 Society filed reply to the injunction application and also filed application under Section 9A for trying the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue. 5. Trial Court decided to try issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue. Trial Court held that the civil court does have jurisdiction to try the suit and being aggrieved by that finding a revision was preferred. 6. After the revision was heard it was held that the civil Court did have jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions contained in Section 9 and 12 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 5 the Act). The applicant submits that the provisions of Section 9 as well as 12 were not at all applicable in the present matter and the provisions contained in Rule 29 of the Rules framed under the Act was applicable and, therefore, the judgment rendered by this Court is patently wrong. 7. I have heard Shri S. P. Deshpande for the applicant and Shri R. K. Deshpande for the non applicant. 8. 7. I have heard Shri S. P. Deshpande for the applicant and Shri R. K. Deshpande for the non applicant. 8. Shri S. P. Deshpande contended that while deciding Civil Revision No. 930/2000 the Court need not have considered the provisions of Section 9 and 12 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977 in asmuch as the dispute did fall within the provision of Section 9 of the said Act. I find much substance in the argument of the learned counsel and the dispute in fact does not fall within the scope of Section 9 of the Act. Section 9 of the Act deals with cases of dismissal, removal, termination, reduction in rank and suspension. The present case is not either of dismissal, removal, termination, reduction of rank or suspension. It may be mentioned that dismissal, removal, termination, reduction in rank and suspension are the major penalties as defined in Rule 31 framed under the Act. If the dispute relates to any one of the grievances then alone the School Tribunal gets jurisdiction to decide the question. 9. Shri S. P. Deshpande learned counsel further submitted that the penalty of recovery of loss caused to the Institution from the salary of the non applicant was imposed by the Society. He submitted that Rule 31 defines major and minor penalties. It is apparent from the said Rule that recovery of any amount from the salary is a minor penalty. For imposition of minor penalty no departmental enquiry is required to be held but mere show cause notice becomes enough. From non applicant's own pleadings in para 11 of the plaint it is clear that a show cause notice was given to him on 24.08.1989 before the penalty of recovery from the salary was imposed. Thus the principle of natural justice have been fully followed. 10. Rule 29 of the Rules reads thus: Penalties: Without prejudice to the provisions of these rules, any employee guilty of misconduct, moral turpitude, wilful and persistent neglect of duty and incompetence, as specified in 7 rule 28, shall be liable for any of the following penalties, namely: (1) warning, reprimand or censure. (2) withholding of an increment for a period not exceeding one year. (2) withholding of an increment for a period not exceeding one year. (3) recovery from pay or from some other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Institution by negligence or breach of orders. (4) reduction in rank. (5) termination of service: Provided that, an employee of a private school aggrieved with decision of imposing a minor penalty as specified in clause (1) of rule 31 may prefer an appeal to the Deputy Director of the region concerned within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order of punishment. It is thus clear from this Rule that a person against whom a minor penalty is imposed has a remedy available and a forum also is available. Person aggrieved by imposition of minor penalty can prefer an appeal before a Deputy Director of Education. Thus, where both remedy by way of appeal and a forum has been provided the civil Court cannot assume jurisdiction as it can be said that its jurisdiction is impliedly barred. Had no remedy been available the Civil Court would have assumed jurisdiction. Shri R. K. Deshpande learned 8 counsel had cited a ruling reported in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao (D) by L.rs. & Ors. 2000 Supreme Appeals Reporter (Civil) 478. In this case Supreme Court has observed that normal rule of law is that civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except those of which cognizance has either expressly or impliedly excluded. 11. In the present case since the remedy and forum has been made available by the Rules the jurisdiction of the civil Court can be certainly said to be impliedly barred. Had no remedy or forum been available, the civil Court could have assumed the jurisdiction. As a result the order holding that civil Court has jurisdiction as passed by this Court in the Revision No. 930 of 2000 needs to be set aside and the revision allowed. The order passed by the trial Court holding that civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit is also set aside. The plaint stands rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) Civil Procedure Code.