JUDGMENT Shri Mishra -- 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal U/S 78 (1) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act') challenging the order dated 31.7.2008 passed by Jt. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Rewa in Case No. 55 (2)-3812005. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant is a District Agricultural Rural Development Bank (for short, 'the Bank') registered U/S 9 of the Act. The respondent is an employee who has been compulsorily retired according to the Service Rules of the appellant Bank. Respondent was working in the Bank as Assistant Accountant. The staff committee of the bank in its meeting on 23.3.1998 took a resolution to compulsory retire five of its employees including the respondent in accordance with the Rule No. 71 (1) of the Service Rules of the Bank. Respondent filed a Service Dispute U/S 55 (2) of the Act before Assistant Registrar initially, but as it was out of jurisdiction, the case was filed before the Joint Registrar, Rewa, who vide the impugned order has held that the order of the appellant Bank compulsorily retiring the respondent on 31.3.1999 was not proper. He, therefore, set aside the said order. Thus, this appeal has been preferred against this order. 3. Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the Joint Registrar has erred in interpreting the Service Rules and the performance of the respondent while setting aside the order of the appellant Bank. He has placed his reliance on the Tribunals decision in Revision No. 230/06 order dated 10.11.2008 (Bhoomi Vices Bank Ujjain v. Santosh Kumar Raghuvanshi) and Revision No. 124/08 order dated 11.11.2008 (Ashok Kumar Kelapure v. Zila Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramin Vikas Bank, Bhopal). 4. Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand pointed out that the service career of the respondent has been 'Fair'. He was never communicated any adverse C.R. Moreover he was given the certificate of excellent performance. It was also pointed out that the decision taken by the appellant Bank was that of the Staff Committee of the Bank and not of the Board. He has placed reliance on Tribunals order in FA No. 20/07 order dated 14.11.2008 (Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Maryadit, Rajgarh v. Swatantra Lal Saxena, Rajgarh). 5. It was also pointed out that the decision taken by the appellant Bank was that of the Staff Committee of the Bank and not of the Board. He has placed reliance on Tribunals order in FA No. 20/07 order dated 14.11.2008 (Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Maryadit, Rajgarh v. Swatantra Lal Saxena, Rajgarh). 5. The only point to be considered in this First appeal is this that whether the appellant Bank compulsorily retiring the respondent was right and whether the lower Court has erred in holding that order to be wrong. 6. Perusing the record of the lower Court, it is apparent that the Joint Registrar has framed six issues for reaching the conclusion which has been assailed. Joint Registrar has through the issues framed dwelt at length on the compulsory retirement as well as about the overall record and performance of the respondent. Joint Registrar has rightly concluded that the decision about the Staff-Committee on 2.5.1998, which in accordance with the Circular of the Registrar Cooperative Society took up the matter and resolved to retire five of its employee, according to Rule 71 (1) of the Service Rules of the Bank. A three months notice was given to the respondent and from 31.3.1999 his services were dispensed with. As regards the performance of the respondent, the Joint Registrar has concluded that since it was not made clear that there were any adverse entries against the respondent for the last five years. As retirement is contrary to the rules, the material point emerging out of the discussions of the two sides is only this that whether the Staff Committee of the appellant Bank could take a decision to compulsorily retire the respondent. This issue has been dealt at length in Tribunal order passed in FA No. 20/07 order dated 14.11.2008 (Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Maryadit, Rajgarh v. Swatantra Lal Saxena, Rajgarh). This issue has been dealt at length in Tribunal order passed in FA No. 20/07 order dated 14.11.2008 (Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Maryadit, Rajgarh v. Swatantra Lal Saxena, Rajgarh). Relevant part of the order is reproduced hereunder : 6- ^^çdj.k esa lcls egRoiw.kZ igyw ;gh gS fd vfuok;Z :i ls lsokfuo`fÙk gsrq l{ke çkf/kdkjh dkSu gS\ bl laca/k esa e-ç- lgdkjh Ñf”k vkSj xzkeh.k fodkl cSad lsok fu;e] 1963 ds fu;e 71 dk çko/kku fuEukuqlkj gS % lsok fuo`fÙk && ¼,d½ && cSad dk çR;sd deZpkjh 58 o”kZ dh vk;q gksus ij] lsok fuo`Ùk gks tk,xkA fdarq lHkh ekeyksa eas] e.Myh; fdlh deZpkjh dk lsokdky] o”kZ çfro”kZ 60 o”kZ dh vk;q rd c<+k ldrk gS] ;fn eaMy dh jk; ess lacaf/kr deZpkjh dh lsok,¡ vko’;d gksa rFkk og LokLF; dh n`f”V ls dk;Z djus ;ksX; gSA bl laca/k esa ftyk LokLF; vf/kdkjh ;k flfoy ltZu dk çek.k i= çLrqr fd;k tkuk gksxkA fdarq çR;sd ,sls ekeys esa lsokdky o`f) gsrq dkj.kksa dk foLrkj ls fyf[kr esa o.kZu djuk gksxkA vkxs ;g Hkh deZpkjh dh vk;q 55 o”kZ vFkok 25 o”kZ lsokdky iw.kZ gksus ij blls tks Hkh igys gks] cSad ds fgr esa fcuk dkj.k n’kkZ;s] cSad rhu ekg dh lwpuk vFkok mlds cnys rhu ekg dk osru o HkÙks nsdj lsok ls fuo`Ùk dj ldrk gSA ¼nks½ && ;fn fdlh deZpkjh dh lsok fuo`fÙk ds fnukad ij vtZr vodk’k dk dksbZ vof’k”V ‘ks”k jgk gks] vkSj ;g vftZr vodk’k deZpkjh ls vodk’k vLohÑr djus ds dkj.k mlds }kjk lsok fuo`fÙk ds fnukad rd mi;ksx u fd;k tk ldk gks rks mldks vodk’k fu;eksa ds v/khu ,sls vftZr vodk’k dh lsok fuo`fÙk ds fnukad ds ckn Hkh miHkksx djus dh vuqefr nh tkosxhA ijarq bldh vf/kdre lhek 180 fnu gksxh rFkk ifjfLFkfr esa deZpkjh dh lsok fuo`fÙk bl laiw.kZ vftZr vodk’k dh vof/k dh lekfIr ds fnukad ls ekuh tkosxhA ¼rhu½ ;fn fdlh deZpkjh dh tUe frfFk dk nwljk ;k i’pkr~orhZ dksbZ vU; fnu gks rks og ekg ds vafre fnu lsok fuo`Ùk gksxkA ijarq ;fn mldh tUe frfFk ekg ds çFke fnu gS rks og iwoZorhZ ekg ds vafre fnu gh lsok fuo`Ùk gks tk,xkA** vihykFkhZ }kjk bl laca/k esa lsok fu;e Øekad &61 dk lanHkZ fy;k x;k ftlesa ^^c** Js.kh ds varxZr cSad deZpkfj;ksa dks xaHkhj naM nsus ds fy, LVkQ mi lfefr dh iwoZ vuqefr ls v/;{k l{ke çkf/kdkjh gSA ;gk¡ ç’u fopkj dk bl çdkj ;gh gS fd çR;FkhZ dh lsok lekfIRk dk vkns’k pw¡fd LVkQ desVh ds fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij tkjh fd;k x;k gS] vr% D;k og fu;ekuqlkj gS \ ;g Li”V gS fd vihykFkhZ laLFkk us çR;FkhZ dks fdlh nkafMd vk/kkj ij lsok fu;e 61 ds çko/kku ds vuqlkj lsok ls i`Fkd ugha fd;k gSA okLro easa ;g dk;Zokgh lsok fu;e 71 ds çko/kku ds varxZr gh dh xbZ gS D;ksafd çR;FkhZ dks cSad fgr es rhu ekg ds osru ds cnys lsokfuo`Ùk fd;k x;k gSA ç’u ;g gS fd tc çR;FkhZ dks lsok fu;e&71 ds vuqlkj lsok ls fuo`Ùk fd;k x;k gS rks ;g fu.kZ; cSad fgr esa gS fdl Lrj ij fy;k tk,xk rFkk D;k ,slk fu.kZ; LVkQ desVh }kjk fn;k tk ldrk gS \ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 48 ¼2½ ds vuqlkj ,d lgdkjh laLFkk dk çca/k lapkyd eaMy esa gh lekfgr gS tSlk fd fuEu çko/kku ls Li”V gksrk gS % ^^ mi/kkjk ds v/;/khu jgrs gq,] çR;sd lkslkbVh dk çca/k bl vf/kfu;e ds ;k mlds v/khu cuk, x, fu;eksa ds ;k lkslkbVh dh mifof/k;ksa ds vuqlkj xfBr dh xbZ lfefr esa fufgr gksxk rFkk og lfefr ,slk ‘kfä;ksa dk ç;ksx djsxh rFkk ,sls drZO;ksa dk ikyu djsxh tks fd bl vf/kfu;e ;k mlds v/khu cuk, x, fu;eksa ;k lkslkbVh dh mifof/k;ksa }kjk Øe’k% mls çnÙk dh tk, ;k ml ij vf/kjksfir fd, tk,A** ¼5½ ;gk¡ ;g fopkj.kh; gS fd fu;e&71 ds varxZr ,d deZpkjh dks mldh lkekU; lsokfuo`fÙk ds iwoZ cSad fgr ;k nf’kZr dkj.kksa ls lsokfuo`Ùk fd, tkus dk fu.kZ; ,d vlkekU; dksfV dk gSA vr% bl fu.kZ; dks LVkQ desVh dks ysus ds fy, l{ke ugha ekuk tk ldrk D;ksafd LVkQ desVh deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfä rFkk lsok lekfIr vkfn ds mUgha ekeyksa esa fopkj vkSj fu.kZ; dj ldrh gS ftlds fy, mls vf/kÑr fd;k x;k gSA lsok fu;eksa ds varxZr cuh LVkQ desVh cSad fgr ls lacaf/kr mPp Lrjh; uhfrxr fu.kZ; ysus gsrq u rks fu;e vkSj u gh vf/kfu;e ds varxZr fdlh çdkj dh vf/kdkfjrk çkIr gS vr% bl laca/k esa tSlk fd la;qä iath;d us Hkh vius lekyksP; vkns’k esa vo/kkfjr fd;k gS vihykFkhZ cSad dh LVkQ desVh pw¡fd çR;FkhZ dks vfuok;Z :i ls lsokfuo`Ùk djus gsrq l{ke ugha Fkh vr% vihykFkhZ laLFkk ds vkns’k fnukad 30-9-2000 dks la;qä iath;d ds }kjk fujLr djrs gq, dksbZ =qfV ugha dh xbZ gSA 7. Since the above said view taken in a similar matter is a considered one and as the circumstances in the present case are also similar to it, the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent cannot be held to be a competent one. Thus, in the light of the above analysis, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order dated 31.7.2008 passed by Joint Registrar. Hence, the appeal is disallowed. Parties to bear their own costs.