1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, against the order of Registrar Cooperative Society Jammu dated 21.4.2001, by virtue of which two appeals filed by respondent No. 2 and 3 have been allowed by way of common order. 2. During pendency of this revision petition, counsel for petitioner stated that he has no grievance against respondent no. 2, accordingly his signature was taken on margin of file on 27.12.2011 and respondent no.2 was deleted from the memo of revision petition. 3. Now this revision petition is confine to respondent no. 3 only. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, Surat Chand --respondent no.3 was salesman of Cooperative Marketing Society Vijaypur. He was found accused of embezzling Rs. 46622.72. Accordingly an arbitration petition was filed by general Manager of Society before Asstt. Registrar Cooperative Society on 16.1.1993. During the course of proceedings, Asstt. Registrar passed orders of attachment of property of Surat Chand. Aggrieved by the order of attachment, a revision petition was filed before Special Tribunal on 18.1.1993 and this Tribunal vacated the order of attachment on 8.4.1993. The case was remanded to Director Command Area Development Jammu having power of Registrar Cooperative Society for disposal under law. 5. Later on, it was found that, power of Registrar conferred upon Director Command Area had already been withdrawn vide SRO No. 59 dated 11.2.1985 and this Tribunal clarified his previous order and referred the matte to Registrar Cooperative society Jammu. Consequent upon the reference, Registrar conducted the proceedings. On 26.2.1996 respondent No. 3 along with other respondent who has been deleted, prayed that they are ready to pay the amount. Accordingly presiding Officer passed order on 26.1.1996, thereby directing respondents to restore the amount less by the permissible claim of respondent towards cooperative Society. 6. On 24.5.1996, a revision petition was filed by respondent no. 3 Surat Singh before Special Tribunal Jammu praying, that his prayer for re-instatement as Salesman, as he has been placed under suspension, has not been considered and his allowance of suspension period was also not considered.This Tribunal stayed the implementation of impugned order. Other respondent also filed revision and both were clubbed. This Tribunal on 26.2.1996 remanded the case to Registrar Cooperative Society with the direction that he shall also consider the aspect of subsistence allowance during the suspension period of these employees. 7. Other respondent also filed revision and both were clubbed. This Tribunal on 26.2.1996 remanded the case to Registrar Cooperative Society with the direction that he shall also consider the aspect of subsistence allowance during the suspension period of these employees. 7. During the course of time, respondents were terminated vide order 1.2.1997 by General Manager of society. As per this order services of respondents were terminated right from the day, they were placed under suspension i.e. from 1.1.1993. 8. These order of termination were challenged before Registrar of Cooperative Society in term of Rule 19 of SRO 233 of 1988. After hearing the parties Registrar held that order of termination are not tenable and both were set aside. The concluding para of order dt.21.4.2001, the order under challenge reads as under; "The termination of the services of S/Sh. Shiv Ram S/O Kaka Ram R/O Dabuj Tehsil Samba and Surat Chand S/O Puran Singh R/O Peekhri Tehsil Samba being in violation of the rules 19 of SRO 233 of 1988 is set aside. The respondent Society shall workout the permissible shortages and allow these to the petitioners while calculating liabilities against them The quantum of shortages to be allowed shall be as prescribed under Govt. Order no. 12 coop of 1994dt.1.3.1994 or actual which ever is less has been allowed in similar other cases. The respondent Society shall however be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the two employees referred to above denovo in accordance with the procedure laid down vide SRO 233. The period of suspension followed by dismissal of service shall be treated as dies non, because the two employees have not worked during the period. In the Society the employees have to earn their wages. The Society is already in loss and has no resources to sustain idle wages. Sd/ Registrar 9. I have carefully considered the argument of both the counsels and also gone through the relevant law pertaining to the subject matter. 10. Bare perusal of order of registrar, it is evident that termination order of respondents has been set aside on account non observance of rule 19 of SRO 233 OF 1988 governing the service conditions of cooperative societies employees. It reads as under- Rule 19: Penalties --(1), the following penalties may for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided be imposed upon members of the service. Namely:- i. censure; ii. It reads as under- Rule 19: Penalties --(1), the following penalties may for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided be imposed upon members of the service. Namely:- i. censure; ii. fine not exceeding one month's pay; iii. with holding of increments and/or promotion; iv. reduction to a lower post and/or a lower time scale and/or to a lower stage in time scale; v. recovery from pay of the whole or part of any + vi. pecuniary loss caused to Society by negligence or breach of orders/trust; vii Dismissal from service of society which ordinarily disqualified from future employment. (2) No penalty shall be imposed on any member of the service unless proper enquiry has been held giving reasonable opportunity to the employee to be heard and thereafter he has been properly charge sheeted and his reply thereto considered; Provided that in case where the Committee/Authority proposes too impose any of the penalties other than those specified in clause (10 and (ii) of sub-rule (1) a show cause, indicating the penalty proposed to be imposed, shall be served to the employee and thereafter on due consideration of the reply thereto and with the approval of the Selection Board any penalty as may be deemed proper may be imposed. 11. Bare perusal of this rule, it is evident that before passing an order of termination of employee of Society, firstly a proper enquiry has to be conducted after providing reasonable opportunity to employee and than employee has to properly charge sheeted and his reply shall also to be considered. If after complying these mandatory provision, authority proposed to impose penalty of dismissal than a show cause notice indicating the proposed penalty shall have to be served upon the employee and reply of employee has to be considered. Further approval of Selection Board has to be called before imposing penalty of dismissal. 12. I have gone through the record. There is nothing on record from which it can inferred that compliance of Rule-19 of SRO -288 of 1988 has been complied by authority before imposing penalty of dismissal. It appears that authority, who has passed termination order was not aware of law and order of termination has been given effect from back date, without giving any opportunities of being heard to employee. 13. It appears that authority, who has passed termination order was not aware of law and order of termination has been given effect from back date, without giving any opportunities of being heard to employee. 13. So order of Court below in setting aside termination of respondent is correct and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Due to unmindful act of authority, who passed termination order of contesting respondent, giving effect from back date, a grave injustice has been done to him, so respondent may consider him for re employment under rule, while implementing court below order. 14. Subsistence allowance to employee, during his suspension period has been considered as fundamental right. So the observation of Court below that Society shall work out permissible shortage and shall allow this shortage to be adjusted in calculating the liability against the respondent no. 3. is also legally sustainable. 15. In view of what has been discussed above, I don't find any legal infirmities in order impugned, it is upheld accordingly. Already much time has expired, so it directed that concern authority shall complete whole exercise within three months. File of this court shall be consigned to records after due compilation.