ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 19.6.2009 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal in First Appeal No.217/2008. 2. Petitioner was subjected to a departmental enquiry and nine charges were levelled against the petitioner. The enquiry officer found the charges proved against the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the respondent Bank terminated the services of the petitioner. 3. Petitioner raised a dispute before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies under section 55(2) of the MP Cooperative Societies Act. The Joint Registrar allowed the dispute. The Joint Registrar made an observation that the enquiry officer submitted report without taking any evidence of any authority or any employee, only on the basis of documents submitted before him. The Authority further observed that the order passed by the Bank was in contravention of service rules. The Tribunal, in appeal, appreciated the evidence and held that the documentary evidence was sufficient to prove misconduct of the petitioner and set aside the order passed by the Joint Registrar. 4. Copy of the service rules applicable at that time in the Bank in regard to the petitioner has been filed as Annexure P/10. Rule 58 of the aforesaid Rules prescribes procedure for enquiry. 4. Copy of the service rules applicable at that time in the Bank in regard to the petitioner has been filed as Annexure P/10. Rule 58 of the aforesaid Rules prescribes procedure for enquiry. Aforesaid Rule reads as under : ^^58- n.M gsrq l{ke vf/kdkjh %& ¼,d½ fdlh Hkh deZpkjh ds fo:) lsok fu;e 56 esa of.kZr dk;ksZa] =`fV;ksa rFkk d`R;ksa ds fy, lsok fu;e 56 ds v/khu l{e vf/kdkjh }kjk n.M laca/kh dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsxh] deZpkfj;ksa vkSj mUgsa n.M nsus ds fy, l{ke vf/kdkfj;ksa dh Jsf.k;ka lsok fu;e 61 ¼N%½ esa nh xbZ gSA ¼nks½ fdlh deZpkjh dks xaHkhj nqjkpj.k ds fy, rc rd nf.Mr ugha fd;k tkosxk tc rd fd tkap gsrq vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh }kjk fuEukuqlkj tkaap djds deZpkjh ds fo:) nqjkpj.k dk nks"k fl) ugha dj fn;k tkrk %& ¼1½ l{ke vf/kdkjh vFkok vFkok mlds }kjk vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh deZpkjh dks izk:i IV esa xEHkhj nqjkpj.k ds fy, vkjksi i= nsxk vkSj lk/kkj.k nqjkpj.k ds fy, izk:i V esa vkjksi i= nsxk] vkjksi i= esa nqjkpj.k dk rFkk mlds fo:) ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk Li"V mYys[k fd;k tkosxk vkSj mldk Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk tkosxkA ¼2½ deZpkjh dks mldk Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr djas gsrq le;] tks fd dkj.k crkvksa lwpuk i= esa fufnZ"V gksxk] fn;k tkosxkA ¼3½ deZpkjh dks viuk cpko Lo;a djus vFkok bl gsrq cSad ds fdlh vU; deZpkjh dh lgk;rk ysus dh vuqefr gksxh] fdUrq fdlh ckgjh O;fDr dks deZpkjh ds cpko gsrq iSjoh djus dh vuqefr ugha gksxhA ¼4½ mu izdj.kksa dks NksM+dj ftuesa deZpkjh mlds fo:) yxk;s x;s vfHk;ksxksa dks Lohdkj dj ysrk gS] deZpkjh dks mlds cpko gsrq lk{; izLrqr djus rFkk fdlh lk{; dk] ftldh lk{kh ij vfHk;ksx vk/kkfjr gks dk izfr ijh{k.k ;k dwV ijh{k.k djus dh vuqefr nh tkosxhA ¼5½ lk{; dh xokgh dk lkj fy[kk tkosxk vkSj mls lEcfU/kr deZpkjh ds le{k i<+k tkosxkA ¼6½ n.M dk vkns'k fyf[kr esa gksxk rFkk l{ke vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj ls fuxZfer fd;k tkosxk] n.M lEcU/kh ikfjr vkns'k dh ,d izfr lEcfU/kr deZpkjh dks nh tkosxhA ¼rhu½ dkj.k crkvks lwpuk&i= esa izLrkfor fd;s x;s n.M ls vf/kd n.M ugha fn;k tk ldsxk] fdUrq de fn;k tk ldrk gSA** 5. From reading of the aforesaid rule, it is clear that except in those cases where an employee admits misconduct, it is obligatory on the part of the Bank to record evidence during enquiry and the employee be afforded opportunity to cross examine the witnesses; the employee will also be afforded opportunity to produce his evidence, and thereafter, the enquiry be completed. 6. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that no evidence was tendered by the Bank before the enquiry officer nor the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to cross examine witnesses. When no evidence was recorded, there was no question of cross examining the witnesses. Petitioner denied the allegations of misconduct. Even if some documents were produced, then also, it was necessary to examine the persons who produced the documents and thereafter it was necessary to afford opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses. Even the evidence of the petitioner was not recorded. Hence, the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was against the statutory provisions of the rules. In such circumstances, the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, had rightly set aside the order of termination. The Joint Registrar also held that the petitioner would not be eligible to get back wages. 7. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.6.2009 passed by MP State Cooperative Tribunal in FA 217/2008 is hereby set aside. However, the respondent Bank is at liberty to conduct enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the rules. No order as to costs.