JUDGMENT 1.Challenging the order dated 8.8.2014 passed by M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal in F.A. No. 113/2010, this writ petition has been filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner was working as Lower Division Clerk in the District Cooperative Bank, Sagar and at the relevant time he was posted in Gadakota Branch of the Bank. On an allegation that he has opened more than 4 Accounts in the name of students in a fictitious manner for the purpose of disbursement of scholarship amount, a charge sheet was issued and departmental enquiry was conducted. Based on the report of departmental enquiry a punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner. 3. Challenging the compulsory retirement a dispute was raised under section 55(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act and the learned Joint Registrar allowed the dispute and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner. On an appeal being filed before the Co-operative Tribunal, the Tribunal having interfered in the matter, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner took us to the order of Joint Registrar and submitted that the impugned action of compulsory retirement is without conducting proper enquiry and without following the rules and regulation as provided for conducting departmental enquiry. 5. On a perusal of para 10 of the order passed by the Tribunal, it appears that a detailed departmental enquiry was conduced by the Enquiry Officer. One Shri K.K. Soni was appointed as Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry and the entire record of the enquiry was scrutinized by the Tribunal and thereafter it was found by the Tribunal that all the documents were given to the petitioner. 6. Acknowledgment of the documents by the petitioner are also on record. The Tribunal has held that the petitioner has opened four accounts in the name of students in an illegal manner and the particulars of the accounts are also mentioned by the tribunal in the order. The learned Tribunal has found that the punishment of compulsory retirement has been arrived at after proper conduction of enquiry and nothing is brought by the petitioner to show that this finding is erroneous. That being so we see no reason to interfere in the matter, as the impugned punishment of compulsory retirement is imposed after properly conducting departmental enquiry. Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere in the matter, this petition is dismissed.