ORDER Heard 1. Petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 13.5.2009; Annexure P-1, passed by Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal. 2. The petitioner was working as Senior Branch Manager in the District Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, respondent No. 2. When he was posted as Branch Manager at Dabra Branch, some misconduct was noticed. Two cases of loan in regard to applicants Omkar Prasad s/o Ratanlal and Mannu s/o Dharua Dheemar residents of village Hathnaura were prepared and they were forwarded for valuation to the Supervisor. Thereafter petitioner and the Supervisor recommended the case for sanction of loan. A tractor was financed to Omkar Prasad and loan was also sanctioned to Mannu s/o Dharua. Subsequently, at the time of recovery, it was revealed that in favour of those fictitious persons who were dead, the petitioner and other persons sanctioned the loans. A show cause notice was issued and petitioner was suspended. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was conducted and vide order dated 11.2.2005 it was ordered that the amount of loan, which was sanctioned be recovered from three persons and the period of suspension of the petitioner was treated as under suspension. 3. Against the aforesaid order petitioner raised a dispute before the Joint Registrar under section 62 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act. The Joint Registrar vide order dated 2.11.2007 has held that the petitioner is entitled to receive salary for the suspension period and the recovery from the petitioner is also illegal. Consequently, the Joint Registrar quashed the order dated 11.2.2005. 4. The respondent-Bank preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Joint Registrar before the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal and the Tribunal by the impugned order quashed the order of the Joint Registrar. 5. The petitioner had been working as Branch Manager at the relevant time. Two cases of loan were sanctioned. It was found in both the loan cases that the persons in whose name loans were sanctioned, were dead persons. The petitioner in his cross-examination admitted the fact that he attested the photos of the loan applicants. He further stated that he recommended for sanction of the loan cases. He further admitted the fact that he did not lodge any complaint about the forged cases. The petitioner in his cross-examination admitted the fact that he attested the photos of the loan applicants. He further stated that he recommended for sanction of the loan cases. He further admitted the fact that he did not lodge any complaint about the forged cases. From the admissions of the petitioner made by him in cross-examination before the Joint Registrar, it is clear that the petitioner is responsible for grant of loan in the name of dead persons. In our opinion, a lenient view has been taken by the Bank against the petitioner, though, looking to the gravity of allegations and misconduct the services of the petitioner ought to have been terminated after conducting a regular enquiry. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses could not be accepted because on this ground the order impugned cannot be set aside. The petitioner himself admitted his misconduct in his cross-examination. Apart from this, there is documentary evidence to establish the involvement of the petitioner. The Tribunal has considered all the factual aspects in detail in the order impugned. In our opinion, there is no illegality, irregularity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. 6. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.