ORDER 1. Order dated 22.9.2014, passed by Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Morena, under section 80-A of Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”) has been challenged in this revision. 2. Brief facts relevant for decision of this revision are that Sandeep Singh (Non-appliant No.1) was working as Manager of applicant Society, which is the Society registered under “the Act” have certain allegation. A chow cause notice was issued to non-applicant No.1 by the society with regard to allegations of mis-management of the Society and acts of grave mis-conduct. As the appellant did not respond to the show cause notice, vide order dated 15.7.2014, he was placed under suspension by “the Society”. The order of suspension was challenged by non-applicant No.1 under section 55(2) of “the Act”, before Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Morena. Interim relief under section 67(1) of “the Act”, was sought by the appellant for staying the operation of suspension order dated 15.7.2014. The learned Deputy Registrar, vide order dated 22.9.2014, refused to grant interim relief. The order passed by the Deputy Registrar was challenged under section 80-A of “the Act”, before the Joint Registrar, who, vide the impugned order, reversed the order passed by the Deputy Registrar and directed reinstatement of the non-applicant No.1. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Joint Registrar “the Society” has approached this Tribunal by way of revision under section 77(14) of “the Act”. The impugned order has been challenged on the following ground :- Firstly, the suspension is not a punishment hence, the order passed by Deputy Registrar was not liable to be interfered. Secondly, Joint Registrar has no power to grant stay in exercise of jurisdiction under section 80-A of “the Act”. Thirdly, applicant Society is a Co-operative Credit Society, hence, Joint Registrar in exercise of jurisdiction under section 80-A, had no right to order reinstatement. He could have only conveyed his opinion to the Society. 3. Non-applicants No.1 and 2 have not appeared before the Tribunal despite services through registered post. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the record. 5. The question of consideration before us is :- (1) Whether the learned Joint Registrar has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order ? 6. 3. Non-applicants No.1 and 2 have not appeared before the Tribunal despite services through registered post. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the record. 5. The question of consideration before us is :- (1) Whether the learned Joint Registrar has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order ? 6. The law is well settled that suspension is not a punishment and the disciplinary authority has discretion to put his employee under suspension to ensure fair enquiry into the allegations levelled against the employee (Refer - Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ramswaroop [ AIR 1957 SC 82 ]. The learned Joint Registrar while passing the impugned order has not taken into consideration the aforesaid settled legal position. Secondly, Law is well settled the Joint Registrar, has no jurisdiction to pass stay order while exercising jurisdiction under section 80-A of “the Act”, (Refer - Ram Singh Chauhan v. Dinesh Ambedkar and another [1999 RN 64=2000(2) MPLJ 94]. The learned Joint Registrar has thus exceeded his jurisdiction by granting stay of suspension order and directing reinstatement of non-applicant No.1. Thirdly, it is well settled that in case relating to Credit Cooperative Society, the Registrar or Joint Registrar has no jurisdiction under section 80 -A of “the Act” to pass any directive order. He is simply required to communicate his findings to the Society. In the present case, ‘the applicant’ is a Credit Cooperative Society, therefore, the learned Registrar had no jurisdiction to issue direction for reinstatement of non-applicant No.1. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the learned Joint Registrar is clearly beyond jurisdiction and therefore, liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.9.2014 is hereby set aside and the order passed by the Deputy Registrar is restored. No order as to the costs.