Order The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the provision of the Jharkhand Co-operative Societies Act which was engaged doing business such as stone crushing plying of Mini Bus, carrying muck to its destination through trucks belonging to the Society but during passage of time, all the businesses due to various reasons were closed and presently the Society is engaged in providing credit by way of financial help to its member. Due to aforesaid reason, profit of the Society decreased considerably beyond its expectation, though establishment cost of the Society went on increasing and under these circumstances, Management of the Society thought it proper to reduce the number of the staff of the Society to stem deterioration of the financial condition and therefore, the matter was brought to the knowledge of the General Body of the Society and the General Body in its meeting held on 25.2.2001 having realized the financial crises, approved the proposal of the Managing Committee to reduce the number of staffs of the Society and authorized the Management of the Society to take suitable decision. Thereupon, the Management of the Society after giving due consideration of all the circumstances took decision to propose to four employees (respondents 4 to 7) to have voluntary retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme in order to reduce the number of excess staffs and the Management took the decision having regard to the fact that the Society would have lesser financial burden in getting respondents 4 to 7 voluntary retired as the Society would have to pay lesser amount to these respondents than the other employees of the Society which fact would be apparent from the chart of the employees showing the amount which would have been incurred if those persons are asked to take voluntary retirement. As per the case of the petitioner, other considerations such as inefficiency and indulgence in malpractices were also taken into account. Consequent upon the decisioh taken by the Management, letters dated 18.4.2001 were issued to respondents 4 to 7 asking them to accept voluntary retirement scheme, otherwise they will be retrenched from the service. 2. Thereupon, respondents 4 to 7 filed Misc. Consequent upon the decisioh taken by the Management, letters dated 18.4.2001 were issued to respondents 4 to 7 asking them to accept voluntary retirement scheme, otherwise they will be retrenched from the service. 2. Thereupon, respondents 4 to 7 filed Misc. Case NO.5 of 2001 before the Court of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Jamshedpur who upon hearing the parties passed the order on 16.5.2002 whereby he set aside the letter dated 18.4.2001 on the grounds that Society has offered voluntary retirement to senior employees of the Society for which no approval under the provision of Rule 33 of the Jharkhand Co-operative Society Rules was taken and secondly that action of the petitioner in offering voluntary retirement to respondents 4 to 7 would put extra financial burden upon the Society. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, respondent no. 2 as the grounds on which the letter dated 18.4.2001 was quashed, were not tenable. 4. As per the case of the appellant, the appellant remained present on all the dates which were fixed but the matter could not be heard but suddenly the matter was taken up for hearing on 23.12.2002 though the appellant had no knowledge of that date and disposed of the case by upholding the order passed by the Assistant Registrar. 5. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, respondent no. 3 and also with the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, respondent no. 2, this writ application has been preferred seeking quashment of both the orders. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that taking into consideration the deteriorating financial condition of the Society, the Management pursuant to decision of the General Body, took decision for offering voluntary retirement to respondents 4 to 7 under the scheme as the Society would have to bear lesser expenditure in giving retiral benefit to them but the Joint Registrar, respondent no. 2, contrary to the scheme of voluntary retirement, did hold that it would put the Society to extra financial burden but the fact is otherwise as voluntary retirement of those four respondents would lead to the Society to have financial gain in long run and that any decision regarding removal of the employees of the Society need not to have approval of the competent authority under the provision of Rule 33 of the Jharkhand Co-operative Society Rules which proposition has clearly been laid down in a case of Ajay Kumar Mishra and Others vs. Registrar, Cooperative Society, Bihar, Patna as reported in [1995(2)PLJR 397] but the Joint Registrar took decision contrary to it and therefore, the order passed by the Joint Registrar is quite illegal. 7. Learned counsel further submits that being aggrieved with the order of the Assistant Registrar, when appeal was preferred before the Joint Registrar, all these grounds were taken for assailing the order of the Assistant Registrar. In that appeal, dates were fixed as 6.8.2002, 5.10.2002 and 22.11.2002 but the matter could nol be heard on those dates, rather the next date was made known to the counsel appearing for the appellant. On 22.11.2002 the case was adjourned for 16.12.2002 on which the appellant appeared but the case ' was not taken and the next date was not made known as all the persons attached with the office of Joint Registrar was busy in making preparation for the visit of the Registrar for the next very day but suddenly the appellant-petitioner came to know that on 23.12.2002 the appeal has been decided ex parte without taking into consideration the grounds taken by the petitioner in his memo of appeal for assailing the order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society and also taking into consideration the document produced by the other side, copy of which had never been given to the petitioner and hence, the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society and also the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society are fit to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded back to the Joint Registrar for hearing the matter afresh. 8. As against this, Mr. 8. As against this, Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 4 to 7 submits that the petitioner though has preferred this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court, though alternate remedy by way of revision is available to the petitioner in terms of Rule 56 of the Cooperative Societies Rules before the Registrar, Co-operative Society, and as such the order needs not to be interfered with by this Court. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has taken an arbitrary decision for getting these respondents retired under the voluntary retirement scheme as General Body in its meeting has never laid down any criteria for choosing the person to whom offer of voluntary retirement should be given by the Management and when the junior members were available, the Management should not have chosen these respondents who are senior employees of the Society for offering voluntary retirement scheme. 10. Learned counsel further submits that when the petitioner did appear before the appellate court on the date of hearing, the appellate court decided the matter on the basis of materials available on the record and as such the appellant cannot be said to have committed any illegality and moreover, the documents which are said to have been filed by these respondents before the appellate court are the documents of the petitioner itself and therefore, those documents would have never caused any prejudice to the petitioner and them fore, under these circumstances, this application is fit to be dismissed. 11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear from the case of the petitioner that the Management of the Society, pursuant to decision taken in the General Body meeting took decision for offering voluntary retirement to these respondents as according to the petitioner, financial burden would be less, though as per the orders passed by both the authorities, the Management should not have chosen senior employees for voluntary retirement in absence of any approval by the competent authority in terms of Rule 33 of the Jharkhand Co-operative Society Rules. 12. 12. As per the counsel appearing for the petitioner, both the grounds taken by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society are not tenable as there is no such requirement of having any approval in terms of Rule 33 before taking decision of offering voluntary retirement scheme to senior employees and that there would be lesser financial burden upon the society in case of voluntary retirement of respondents 4 to 7 but the contrary view has been taken by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society and these two grounds on amongst others seem to have been taken in appeal for assailing the order of the Assistant Registrar and as per the statement made by the petitioner for four dates, the appeal could not be heard whereas it was heard on 23.12.2002, notice of which had not been given to the petitioner. This averment does not seem to have been controverted by the respondent nos. 4 to 7 in its counter affidavit. Moreover, the appellate court does not seem to have taken into consideration the grounds taken in the memo of appeal for assailing the order of the Assistant Registrar in deciding the case ex parte and as such the order passed by the appellate court seems to be against the principle of natural justice. 13. Accordingly, the order passed by the appellate court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Joint Registrar, respondent no. 2, who will decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 14. With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of.