JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This Writ Petition has been filed assailing the order of dismissal dated 28.01.1986 of the petitioner vide Annexure-10, declaring the consequential orders dated 06.11.1993 and 07.3.1998 of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Orissa, Bhubaneswar as nonest in the eye of law and declaring the order dated 05.11.2001of the Co-operative Tribunal vide Annexure-20 as bad in law with a further prayer to direct the Opp. party Nos.1 and 4 to reinstate the petitioner in service with all benefits. 2. Short back ground involved in the case is that petitioner came into service as Cadre Secretary in the Sauri Service Co-operative Society in the year 1980. While the petitioner was continuing so, the Cadre Committee of the Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank suspended him on 19.12.1983 contemplating a Disciplinary proceeding. Thereafter he was reinstated in service on 14.02.1984. Basing on the allegations against the petitioner, certain charges were framed against him on 15.02.1984 vide Annexure-2 which reads as follows: “(i) Without disclosing the names of the five loanee members it was alleged that petitioner made false loan entries in the Sauri S.C.S. (ii) Alleged that the petitioners old fertilizer to Sahadeba Nayak worth Rs.100.54 paise with subsidy of Rs.30.00 though fertilizer allotment originally was worth Rs.248.00 (iii) Alleged that petitioner sold fertilizer to Surendra Rout worthRs.80.00 though in the stock register the allotment of fertilizer worth Rs.490.16 was reduced Rs.80.00. (iv) Alleged that Rs.2400.00 loan of Sayed Ali Hasan was recorded as Rs.2100.00 which amounts to improper record keeping and the petitioner collected 10% at the time of finance. (v) Alleged that cash balance of Rs.1000.00 was kept in the society without depositing the said amount in the Bank. (vi) Alleged that Society’s furnitures , Dari, fan were being personally used without authority . (vii) Alleged that, Rs.2062.00 was misappropriated on 31.8.83 because the said amount was not entered into the cash book. (viii) Alleged that purchased fertilizers of the Sauri SCS were being unloaded in the petitioner’s own house. (ix) Alleged that Banking rules are not followed. (x) Alleged that 47 loan application were kept pending since 27.8.83. (xi) Alleged that the petitioner was remaining absent frequently.” In the mean time, the petitioner was again suspended on 26.3.1984 pursuant to framing of the aforesaid charges and he was asked to submit his explanation to the charges framed under Annexure-2. (ix) Alleged that Banking rules are not followed. (x) Alleged that 47 loan application were kept pending since 27.8.83. (xi) Alleged that the petitioner was remaining absent frequently.” In the mean time, the petitioner was again suspended on 26.3.1984 pursuant to framing of the aforesaid charges and he was asked to submit his explanation to the charges framed under Annexure-2. Basing upon explanation of the petitioner, the Cadre Committee framed another set of charge sheet under the guise of additional charges involving additional allegations against the petitioner on 24.4.1984 as appearing at Annexure-4 and reads as follows: “(i).Rs.21980.00 was collected from 59 members and entered in the loan ledger without supporting entry in the cash book. (ii). Against the money receipt for Rs.1000.00 to one Alekh Nayak, the Counter Foil of the receipt shows Rs.470.00 as such Rs.530.00 is misappropriated. (iii).Against the money receipt for Rs.500.00 to one Krushna Chandra Panda the Counter Foil shows Rs.480.00, as such Rs.20.00 is misappropriated.” Pursuant to the second set of charges, the petitioner submitted his explanation vide Annexure-5. Sauri Service Co-operative Society is a primary Society, where the petitioner was functioning as Secretary and this Society is a member of the Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank. The Secretaries of the Primary Societies being key persons have been encadered as Cadre Secretaries being controlled by the Cadre Committee of the Bank under the Cadre Rules. Cadre Rule is a statutory rule framed under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962. The Cadre Committee is functioning both as Controlling Authority and Disciplinary Authority. The Cadre Committee brings out the provision for taking up the Disciplinary proceeding. On 04.9.1984 the petitioner received a notice for personal hearing fixing the date to 20.9.1984. It is alleged that personal hearing could not be taken up on 20.9.1984 and was adjourned to 25.9.1984, on which date though personal hearing of the petitioner was made but result was not known to him until 25.4.1985. It is by subsequent intimation available under Annexure-7 the petitioner was only intimated that pending finalization of enquiry under suspension, he is reinstated in service with immediate effect. The petitioner was also intimated that vide Annexure-8 one Jitendranath Mohanty, Sub Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society was appointed as Enquiring Officer in place of one P.D.Patra, Sub Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society. It is by subsequent intimation available under Annexure-7 the petitioner was only intimated that pending finalization of enquiry under suspension, he is reinstated in service with immediate effect. The petitioner was also intimated that vide Annexure-8 one Jitendranath Mohanty, Sub Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society was appointed as Enquiring Officer in place of one P.D.Patra, Sub Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society. Petitioner alleged that even though an enquiry was conducted taking into consideration the charges framed against him, the enquiry was concluded in a most whimsical manner and without following principles of natural justice in as much as without affording proper opportunity of personal hearing. Even the petitioner has not been served with a copy of the enquiry report along with the notice for personal hearing and in the mean time the petitioner received the order of dismissal vide Annexure-10.The petitioner also averred that when the Disciplinary proceeding was continuing, at the same time on the selfsame issue, Sauri Service Co-operative Society filed Dispute Case No.2952/1984-85 before the Registrar Co-operative Society and the Dispute case was in charge of hearing of another Sub Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society namely U.N.Sahu functioning as Arbitrator under Section 68 read with section 70 of the Orissa Co-operative Society Act,1962. This Dispute case was ultimately dismissed by the Arbitrator vide order dated 19.7.1985. In the mean time, following Rule 17 of the Cadre Rule, the petitioner availed the Revision remedy by filing Revision Case No.26 of 1986 specifically averring therein that there was no proof of charges. He had also not received any enquiry report on the basis of which the order of dismissal was passed. Further more the Authorities having failed to produce documents before the Registrar, Co-operative Society, the Disciplinary Authority could not have determine the money liability or the misconduct involving embezzlement of money. This revision was contested by the Society. Apart from taking many other grounds, the Society took up the plea of alternate remedy of appeal under Rule 15 of the Cadre Rules and hence, the revision was not maintainable at that stage. Further, in view of the bar under Section 68(1) of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 there was also no scope available for the Registrar, Co-operative Society to invoke the provision under rule 17 of the Cadre Rules. The revision was ultimately dismissed by the Registrar, Co-operative Society vide order dated 06.11.1993 for having no merit. Further, in view of the bar under Section 68(1) of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 there was also no scope available for the Registrar, Co-operative Society to invoke the provision under rule 17 of the Cadre Rules. The revision was ultimately dismissed by the Registrar, Co-operative Society vide order dated 06.11.1993 for having no merit. Being aggrieved with the dismissal order dated 06.11.1993 passed in the revision, the petitioner filed a Review petition before the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Orissa on 22.11.1993. Said Review petition was also dismissed vide order dated 07.3.1998. The petitioner further averred that by virtue of an amendment of the Co-operative Society Act, the provision of Section 67-B(1)(iii) was introduced from 01.5.1993 giving the jurisdiction in service matters in relation to the employees of the Co-operative Societies to the Co-operative Tribunal by way of amendment of the Act. Petitioner thus alleged that since the revision was pending on 01.5.1993 at the time of the introduction of new provision in the Co-operative Societies Act vide Section 67-B(1)(iii), it was incumbent upon the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Orissa to transfer the Revision records to the Co-operative Tribunal for its decision, instead of deciding the revision itself and thus, order passed in the revision on 06.11.1993 is without jurisdiction. It is at this stage, realizing that the Service Dispute Cases would be tried and decided by the Co-operative Tribunal, the petitioner filed Service Dispute Case No. 40 of 1998 on 07.4.1998 seeking to set aside the dismissal order vide Annexure-10.The Dispute Case No.40 of 1998 was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 05.11.2001 appearing at Annexure-20. 3. Assailing the order passed by the Co-operative Tribunal, Sri Mallick, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal has failed in exercising its jurisdiction vested under Section 67-B(1)(iii) of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act.. The findings of the Tribunal are based on no satisfactory documents to establish the same. The Tribunal has not considered non-supply of enquiry report aspect at all. The Tribunal failed in understanding the malafides in the conduct of the Bank as the Bank remained non-cooperative although. The Tribunal failed in appreciating the decision of this Court in O.J.C.No.2679 of 1987 and O.J.C.No.2765 of 1987 decided on 27.4.1992. Further the findings of the Tribunal on the shortage of money and amounting to misappropriation, is not appropriate. The Tribunal failed in understanding the malafides in the conduct of the Bank as the Bank remained non-cooperative although. The Tribunal failed in appreciating the decision of this Court in O.J.C.No.2679 of 1987 and O.J.C.No.2765 of 1987 decided on 27.4.1992. Further the findings of the Tribunal on the shortage of money and amounting to misappropriation, is not appropriate. The Society lost the Dispute case No.2952/1984-85 in absence of cogent materials at the instance of the Society. Besides the judgment passed by the Tribunal is based on certain observation and opinion of the Registrar, Co-operative Society, Orissa. Since the Tribunal is an independent authority, should not have relied upon the opinion and observation of the Registrar, Co-operative Society, rather than taking an independent view. 4. This Court finds the Opp. party No.4-Sauri Service Co-operative Society Ltd. has not appeared to contest the case inspite of notice being held sufficient on it. Mr. S.C.Panda, learned counsel appearing for Opp. party No.1-Cuttack Central Co-operative Bank, the Central Body has no role to play in the litigation which was contested between the petitioner and Opp. party No.4 all through. Under the circumstances, this Court is compelled to proceed to decide this matter only upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the materials available on record. 5. Leaving aside the admitted factual position that petitioner was an employee of the Sauri Service Co-operative Society Ltd was suspended, he was supplied with the charge sheet and additional charge sheet, suspension order was subsequently lifted, Disciplinary proceeding was initiated and concluded holding the petitioner guilty, petitioner preferred revision before the Revisional authority and the Revision was dismissed, in the mean time Dispute case initiated before the Arbitrator at the instance of the Society was also dismissed, a Review petition at the instance of the petitioner also filed and the same was also dismissed. It is now necessary to see the pivotal questions raised by the petitioner that in view of the introduction of the provision of Section 67-B of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, on 01.5.1993, whether the Revisional Authority had the jurisdiction to proceed with the revision after the above target date, rather than transferring the Revision record to the Co-operative Tribunal for its decision in exercise of power under Section 67-B of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act.? Further if the cooperative dispute raised by the petitioner taking resort to the provision contained in Section 67-B of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act in existence of revision involving the dispute, rather than asking for transfer of the revision to the Co-operative Tribunal was maintainable or not ? 6. In view of the above, this Court is now required to see the Rule 17 of the Cadre Rules which reads as follows: “The R.C.S. may revise, amend, modify, supersede or annual any order on decision of the Cadre Committee.” There is no doubt that petitioner had a remedy of revision against the dismissal order of the Cadre Committee under Rule 17 of the Cadre Rules. 7. Now looking to the provision contained in Section 67-B of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act., the rule reads as hereunder: “Rule 67-B(1): (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, any dispute arising in connection with the election of any office-bearer of a Society, or the disciplinary action taken by a Society or its committee against any paid servant of the Society who is not a workman within the meaning of Clause(s) of Section (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall be referred to the Tribunal in the manner and within the period prescribed in that behalf. (ii) If any question arises as to whether a dispute referred to the Tribunal under Clause (i) is a dispute within the meaning of that clause, the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. (iii) All disputes arising in connection with the election of any office-bearer of a Society or the disciplinary action taken by Society or its committee against any paid servant of the Society, with whatever authority under this Act, Rules or any Regulations framed under this Act pending as on the date of commencement of the Orissa Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1991 shall stand transferred to the Tribunal which shall dispose of the same in accordance with law.” 8. Reading of the Rule 67-B (i) (iii) makes it clear that all disputes involving the disciplinary action taken by Society or its committee against any paid servant of the Society, with whatever authority under this Act, Rules or any Regulations framed under this Act pending as on the date of commencement of the Orissa Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1991 shall stand transferred to the Tribunal which shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. Looking to the aforesaid provision, this Court finds the revision at the instance of the petitioner under Section 17 of the Rules was pending on the date of coming into effect of the Orissa Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act.1991 instead of being disposed of after 01.5.1993, ought to have been transferred to the Co-operative Tribunal for its decision following the provision contained in Section 67-B (i) (iii) of the Act and for this, the revision order becomes void for its having been passed by an Authority incompetent after the Amendment Act,1991 came into force on 01.5.1993. Therefore, the final order passed in Revision must fail. 9. Now coming to answer on the question No.2 hereinabove, this Court finds that since the petitioner had already preferred a revision involving his dismissal order from service by way of a disciplinary proceeding, he had no scope to file a co-operative dispute following the provision of Section 67-B (i) (ii) (iii) of Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. Instead he should have asked at least for transfer of the Revision pending at the time of Amendment of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1991 on 01.5.1993. 10. In view of the above, this Court while declaring the order dated 06.11.1993 of the revisional authority passed in Revision Case No.26 of 1986,consequential order in the Review arising out of the above Revision as well as the order passed in the Co-operative Dispute case vide Annexure-20 are bad in law. Consequently, while allowing the Writ petition, this Court directs the Registrar, Co-operative Society, Orissa to remit the entire case record involving Revision Case No.26 of 1986 to the Co-operative Tribunal for deciding the matter in exercise of power under Section 67-B (i) (iii) of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. Writ petition stands allowed. Parties to bear their respective costs.