Judgment This appeal, preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10-8-1979, passed by learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1978, whereby said appeal is allowed and judgment and decree dated 11-11-1978, passed by Munsif, Lansdowne, in Original Suit No. 18 of 1972, is set aside and the suit is dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties: 3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Bhairav Datta Dobariyal, instituted a suit for declaration that order dated 5-12-1969, passed by defendant / respondent no.1, terminating his services, is null and void. The plaintiff also sought his reinstatement in services with effect from 26-8-1969, with full pay and allowances. Factual matrix of the case shows that plaintiff joined the defendant District Cooperative Bank in the year 1960-61 as Accounts Clerk. He has pleaded in the plaint that he discharged his duty honestly and promoted to the post of Cashier in the year 1962-63. In the year 1966-67, he was selected for managerial training and sent to Rajpur, Dehradun, for said purpose. In 1968, it is alleged by the plaintiff that he sent a complaint to His Excellency Governor, complaining about the irregularities committed in the Bank. It is pleaded that the then Manager of the Bank, Sri Harikrishana Dimri, got annoyed with the plaintiff and a false report of misappropriation of funds of the Bank was sent by said Manager against the plaintiff. The plaintiff was placed under suspension. Subsequently, a charge sheet was served on him, which included the charge of misappropriation of the Bank's funds. It is pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff submitted his explanation, but without giving proper opportunity of being heard, his services were terminated vide resolution no. 2 dated 5-12-1969, by the Bank. Challenging the termination order, on the ground that the principles of natural justice were violated, the suit was instituted before the trial court. 4. The defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement, in which it is pleaded that on 25-7-1969, when Harikrishan Dimri, Manager of the Bank, inspected and verified the cash, it was found short of Rs. 5,863.60/-. The plaintiff could not explain the shortage. It is further pleaded that an inquiry was held under the bye-laws of the Bank and a special committee was constituted for the purpose. 5,863.60/-. The plaintiff could not explain the shortage. It is further pleaded that an inquiry was held under the bye-laws of the Bank and a special committee was constituted for the purpose. It is stated that the plaintiff was served with the charge sheet on 11-10-1969. The plaintiff did not submit explanation within time. On this, fresh opportunity was given and ultimately he submitted his explanation on 4-12-1969. Also, the plaintiff was personally heard by the Board of Directors on 5-12-1969, before the order of termination was passed against him. It is lastly pleaded in the written statement that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court :(i) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? (ii) Whether the order, terminating the services of the plaintiff is illegal? (iii) Whether the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit? (It appears that this issue is framed twice). (iv) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (v) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (vi) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? The trial court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit. It further found that the impugned order of termination was illegal. The trial court held that the suit was not barred by limitation nor was it bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, though there is mis-joinder of defendant no.2, State. With these findings, the trial court decreed the suit, declaring that the impugned order of terminating the services of petitioner, passed by defendant no. 1 is illegal. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree dated 11-11-1978, defendant no.1, i.e. Board of Directors of District Cooperative Bank, Kotdwar, filed Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1978, before the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal. The said lower appellate court, after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal vide its judgment and order dated 10-8-1979, and dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal was filed by the plaintiff before the Allahabad High Court on 20-11-1979. The Allahabad High Court admitted the appeal on 27-111979, treating ground no. 1, in the memorandum of appeal, as substantial question of law. (This appeal is received by this Court by transfer under Section 35 of U .P. Reorganization Act, 2000, for its disposal). Hence, this appeal was filed by the plaintiff before the Allahabad High Court on 20-11-1979. The Allahabad High Court admitted the appeal on 27-111979, treating ground no. 1, in the memorandum of appeal, as substantial question of law. (This appeal is received by this Court by transfer under Section 35 of U .P. Reorganization Act, 2000, for its disposal). The ground no.1, in memorandum of appeal, reads as under :. "Because the whole enquiry against the appellant was malafide, illegal and against the principle of natural justice. The lower court acted illegally in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff appellant in utter disregard of the well established principle of law. " 6. Answer to Substantial Question of Law :- It is pertinent to mention here that the services of the plaintiff, as an employee of the District Cooperative Bank, were governed by U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, and the Rules framed thereunder. It is also relevant to mention here that this case pertains to the period prior to the Rules of 1975, came into force. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the lower appellate court has erred in law in upholding the order of termination, passed by Board of Directors of the District Cooperative Bank, Kotdwar, against the appellant. In this connection, it is further argued that case of the appellant was covered under Rule 21 of the Rules framed under UP. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, and the procedure contained therein is not followed. Rule 21 of the Rules, applicable in the year 1969, to the employees of the Cooperative Bank reads as under :- "R. 21. - Every employee is expected to attend his job faithfully and do all that may be necessary for the efficient discharge of the duty entrusted to him. It will be his duty to see that the Bank is not financially injured by any of his injudicious or careless action. If an employee behaves carelessly or commits irregularities or his actions are prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, an enquiry may be instituted. The employee may be called upon to explain the charges that may be framed against him. He will be required to submit his explanation to the enquiring officer to be deputed by the Managing Director such an employee will also be given an opportunity to be heard in person if he so desires. The employee may be called upon to explain the charges that may be framed against him. He will be required to submit his explanation to the enquiring officer to be deputed by the Managing Director such an employee will also be given an opportunity to be heard in person if he so desires. If no explanation is received or the explanations submitted is unsatisfactory the punishment that is proposed to be given to him may be communicated to him, and he will be required to show cause why the proposed punishment may not be given to him. If no further explanation is received or the explanation is unsatisfactory, the Board of person authorized will award the punishment to him." 8. Learned counsel for the defendant / respondent drew attention of this Court to Rule 22 of the Rules applicable at the time, when the termination order was passed, which reads as under :- "R. 22 – Not withstanding anything contained in Rule 21 above. If any employee is guilty of any misconduct as defined herein, he shall be liable to be dismissed without notice or nay compensation in lieu of notice. The following acts and omissions shall be treated as misconduct :- (a) Wilful subordination or disobedience, whether alone or in combination with others to any lawful and reasonable order issued or authorized by the authorities. (b) Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the business or property of the Bank. (c) Wilful damage to or loss of goods or property of the Bank. . (d) ..................... It is contended on behalf of the defendant / respondent that the impugned order of termination was passed under Rule 22 (c) vide resolution dated 5-12-1969, and no departmental enquiry was necessary in the matter. Though the impugned order purports to have been passed under Rule 22 of the bye-laws, applicable to the employees of the Cooperative Bank, for which no departmental enquiry was necessary to be held, opportunity of being heard was given to the plaintiff/appellant. Assuming for a moment that the case is covered under Rule 21, as suggested by learned counsel for the appellant, it is clear from the evidence on record that opportunity of being heard was given to the plaintiff and he did admittedly submit his explanation in the enquiry. Assuming for a moment that the case is covered under Rule 21, as suggested by learned counsel for the appellant, it is clear from the evidence on record that opportunity of being heard was given to the plaintiff and he did admittedly submit his explanation in the enquiry. It is also on the record that before the order of termination was passed, the plaintiff was given personal hearing by the Board of Directors. This Court is unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order of termination is illegal, malafide or against the law for the violation of principles of nature justice. As such, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the lower appellate court in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit. Substantial question of law stands accordingly answered 9. Apart from the above discussions, this Court feels it necessary to observe that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the present suit was barred by Section 111 of UP.Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, which reads as under :- "111. Bar of jurisdiction of court.- Save as expressly provided in this Act, no civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of (a) the registration of a co-operative society or its by-laws or of an amendment of a by-law; (b) the supersession or suspension of a Committee of Management; (c) any dispute required under Section 70 to be referred to the Registrar: and (d) any other order or award made under this Act." The impugned order is certainly an order passed under the Act, i.e. U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. As such, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. In addition to this, it is also pertinent to mention here that under Section 70 of the aforesaid Act, the disputes which may be referred to the arbitration, are not cognizable by the Civil Court, include disputes between Co-operative Societies and its employees. As is clear from Clause (c) of Section 70 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, both the courts below have erred in law in holding that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction. 10. For the reasons as discussed above, this second appeal has no force and the same is liable to be dismissed. The second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.