ORDER 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order Annexure P-1 dated 18.5.2012 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal in Second Appeal No. 226/2007. 3. The petitioner was working as Samiti Prabandhak in the District Co-operative Society, Shivpuri, When he was posted at co-operative societies Kulwara and Kharai, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 27.2.1999. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner in regard to misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 41,241/- and other financial irregularities. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter vide order Annexure P-2 dated 14.10.2000 the services of the petitioner were terminated. 4. Against the aforesaid order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred a dispute under section 55 (2) read with section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1960) before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal and the Deputy Registrar allowed the dispute and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner vide order Annexure P-3 dated 10.12.2001 without back wages. Thereafter, the petitioner joined the services. 5. The Bank also filed a dispute under section 64 of the Act of 1960 against the petitioner in regard to recovery of certain amount. The Deputy Registrar ordered recovery of an amount of Rs. 91,692/- from the petitioner vide order Annexure P-5 dated 30.10.2003. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed before the Registrar. Meanwhile, the services of the petitioner were again terminated by the Bank vide order dated 27.10.2004 in view of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, whereby the authority issued a decree of recovery of Rs. 91,692/- against the petitioner. The petitioner again filed a dispute under section 55 (2) read with section 64 of the Act of 1960 before the Deputy Registrar and the authority allowed the dispute and directed reinstatement of the petitioner vide order dated 14.3.2007 without back wages, because his services were terminated without following due process of law. The Bank filed an appeal against the aforesaid order. The Joint Registrar decided both the appeals; appeal No. 77/78/04 against the order of recovery and appeal No. 78/6/07 against the order of reinstatement. The Joint Registrar set aside the order of recovery in the appeal filed by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal filed by the Bank against the order of reinstatement. The Joint Registrar decided both the appeals; appeal No. 77/78/04 against the order of recovery and appeal No. 78/6/07 against the order of reinstatement. The Joint Registrar set aside the order of recovery in the appeal filed by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal filed by the Bank against the order of reinstatement. Against both the orders, the Bank preferred two Second Appeals before the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal. The Cooperative Tribunal set aside the order of recovery ordered against the petitioner and remanded the matter back to the Joint Registrar and another Second Appeal No. 226/2007 which was filed by the Bank against the order of reinstatement disposed of by the Tribunal vide impugned order Annexure P-1 with a direction that the respondent - Bank is at liberty to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner from the stage of issuance of charge-sheet. This order is under challenge in this petition. 6. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the order of termination Annexure P-2 was set aside by the Deputy Registrar vide order Annexure P-3 dated 10.12.2001 in a dispute filed by the petitioner under section 55(2) of the Act of 1960. Against the aforesaid order, the Bank did not file any appeal and the petitioner was reinstated in service. Thereafter, the Bank filed a dispute for recovery of certain amount against the petitioner, which was allowed by the Deputy Registrar and consequent thereto the services of the petitioner were again terminated, which was challenged by the petitioner and then the order of termination was set aside. 7. However, the fact remains that against the order of termination Annexure P-2 dated 14.10.2001, the petitioner preferred a dispute under section 55(2) Read with section 64 of the Act of 1960, that was allowed vide order Annexure P-3 dated 10.12.2001 and that order has become final, because no appeal was filed by the Bank against the aforesaid order, Subsequently, the petitioner was again terminated on account of passing of a decree of recovery of Rs. 91,692/- and that order was set aside by the Cooperative Tribunal. In such circumstances, the Cooperative Tribunal could not remand the case back in regard to enquiry against the petitioner, because the Bank did not challenge the order Annexure P-3 dated 10.12.2001 and that order has become final. 91,692/- and that order was set aside by the Cooperative Tribunal. In such circumstances, the Cooperative Tribunal could not remand the case back in regard to enquiry against the petitioner, because the Bank did not challenge the order Annexure P-3 dated 10.12.2001 and that order has become final. Hence, the order of remand passed by the Co-operative Tribunal is contrary to law. Apart from this, the petitioner has already suffered a lot as his services were terminated in the year 2000, thereafter the order of reinstatement was passed without back wages and the petitioner’s services were again terminated in the year 2004. 8. Hence, it would be just and proper that the order of reinstatement would remain as it is, however, the petitioner would not be entitled for back wages. 9. Consequently the petition of the petitioner is disposed of with the following directions:- (a) That the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 18.5.2001 is hereby quashed. (b) It is ordered that the petitioner is entitled for the reinstatement in service with continuity in service and other consequential benefits, however, he would not be entitled for back wages for the period when he was out of employment. No order as to costs.