JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed at the instance of the delinquent-petitioner assailing the order dated 30.1.2013 passed by the learned Member, Co-operative Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in Service Dispute No.11 of 2011 under Annexure-1, a dispute under Section 67(B) of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962. 2. Short background involved in the matter is that the petitioner while continuing as Cadre Secretary of District Central Co-operative Bank, Odisha, Bhubaneswar met with a Motorcycle accident on 1.2.2000. The petitioner claimed that he had tendered leave application to the competent authority through the President of Kansara Service Co-operative Society Ltd. and underwent treatment. He was served with a suspension order on 2.6.2000. It is only after he was recovered from the ailment submitted his joining report to the competent authority with Medical Certificate on 10.5.2010 and it is at this point of time he was informed that he has been dismissed from service with effect from 18.4.2002 as a result of an established disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner on the allegation that he had never got any communication of initiation of any disciplinary proceeding, raised a dispute under Section 67(B)(1)(i) of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 before the Member, Co-operative Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar raising the dispute, the petitioner contended that when he was under suffering on account of Motorcycle accident and absent on that account, he has not been communicated about the initiation of the proceeding initiated against him and the proceeding has been decided behind his back and culminated with an ex parte dismissal order. Under the circumstance the petitioner claimed that the order of dismissal should be interfered and set aside. Sri Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner to support his above pleadings referring to the documents filed by the plaintiff-petitioner submitted before the competent Authority that the petitioner has a clear case of non-compliance of natural justice involving a disciplinary proceeding resulting an order of dismissal cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 3. Sri. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party referring to the written statement submitted that firstly the proceeding initiated in the year 2011 challenging the termination order dated 18.4.2002 suffers on account of long lapse of time being contrary to Rule 74((1) of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Rule, 1965. 3. Sri. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party referring to the written statement submitted that firstly the proceeding initiated in the year 2011 challenging the termination order dated 18.4.2002 suffers on account of long lapse of time being contrary to Rule 74((1) of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Rule, 1965. Further, in absence of any material to establish that petitioner was physically unfit for initiating such a proceeding after such long lapse of time and further as the petitioner admittedly was served with an order of suspension dated 2.6.2000 his claim that he was unaware of any development in between cannot be accepted. It is also contended by Sri Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party that for refusal of the petitioner’s accepting copy of the notices of charge sheet, appointment of Inquiry Officer and attending to the Inquiry Proceeding, further looking to the notice by way of advertisement was made in a local news paper exhibited as Ext.’K’, it is thus claimed that the plea of the petitioner that he was unaware of the proceeding cannot be otherwise accepted. 4. Heard the rival contentions of the parties. Looking to the pleadings raised in the dispute by respective parties and the submissions made herein by the parties, this Court finds the matter involved in the Service Dispute No.11 of 2011 remained an order of dismissal dated 18.4.2002 passed by the District Central Co-operative Bank. Petitioner apart from the pleadings in the dispute raised by him has also deposed personally and exhibited certain documents. Perusal of the deposition at the instance of the petitioner and filing of documents, this Court finds the petitioner as P.W.1 particularly in paragraphs-2 and 3 of the Examination in chief made the following statements: Paragraph-2. That while undergoing treatment as bed ridden, I was served with an order of suspension vide order No.1030 dated 02.06.2000 of the Defendant No.1 without paying subsistence allowance. Paragraph-3. That after being declared physically fit as per the Doctors Certificate on dated 10.05.2010, although I submitted joining report with Defendant No.3, it was not accepted by informing about dismissal from service since 18.4.2002 followed by a charge sheet and enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer in a disciplinary proceeding No.6393 dated 08.02.2001, which are never served on me including the order of dismissal. In the cross examination, in paragraph-20, the petitioner had a clear statement that he has been served with suspension order while he was in hospital. He remained on leave from 1.3.2000 after applying for leave through the President of the Kansara Service Co-operative Society Ltd. In paragraph-21, the petitioner had a clear statement that upon his suspension, his headquarter was fixed at Bolangir Head Office and that he had not reported in the headquarter and he had not also filed any document establishing that he was not in employment during course of time. 5. Reading of the statements in chief reflected hereinabove, and the statement in the cross examination in respect of the petitioner, it is clearly established that the petitioner was well aware of his suspension and fixation of headquarter at Bolangir Head Office and even though the petitioner made a statement that he was hospitalized he had not filed any document to establish at least that he was ailing and further that he has been hospitalized for such long period making him unable to attend the Head Office during these 9 years. Looking to the evidence of the establishment, this Court observes that the establishment to satisfy the case of deliberate negligence of the petitioner has not only brought on record that the suspension order was served on the petitioner, it also brought on record in Ext.’K’, a paper publication dated 26.5.2001 requesting the petitioner to attend the inquiry. From the scan of the record, this Court finds the Tribunal taking up the dispute had framed the following issues: 1. Is the dispute case maintainable? 2. Is the proceeding barred by limitation? 3. Was there proper notice to the delinquent? 4. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to? 6. From the aforesaid narrations, this Court finds Issue Nos.1 and 2 are very relevant. Consequently, this Court proceeds first to decide on the above two issues and in reference to the relevant provisions at Section 67 B. (1) (i) of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act,1962 as well as Rules 74 (1), Rule 82-A and Sub-Rule-3 of Rule 82-A of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965 to arrive at a just conclusion. Consequently, this Court proceeds first to decide on the above two issues and in reference to the relevant provisions at Section 67 B. (1) (i) of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act,1962 as well as Rules 74 (1), Rule 82-A and Sub-Rule-3 of Rule 82-A of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965 to arrive at a just conclusion. Section 67-B. (1) (i) of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act, 1962: “Powers of the Tribunal:- 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 Clauses(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.” Rule 74 (1) of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965: “Limitation-A dispute relating to election of a member or on office of the Committee of a Society shall be referred to the Co-operative Tribunal within two months from the date on which the election, with reference to which the dispute arose was held.” Rule 82-A of the Odisha Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965: “Reference of dispute to Tribunal- (1) Reference of any dispute under Section 67-B shall be in writing and the presented to the member of the Tribunal or to such officer as such member or, as the case may be, the concerned member appoints in this behalf.” xxx xxx xxx “(3) Provisions of Rules 72, 73, 74 (1), 75(2), 77, 78, 79,80, 81 and 82 shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of a dispute referred to the Tribunal under Section 67-B.” Reading of the aforesaid provisions it becomes clear that though the delinquent got a right to raise a dispute under Section 67(a) (1) (i), but following the rules prescribed at 82(A) and 74(1) the limitation for initiation of any dispute is two months. From the discussions made hereinabove and in absence of any document to establish that the petitioner was in fact prevented from raising dispute in time, this Court finds Issue nos.1 and 2 have been rightly answered against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court finds the dispute raised by the petitioner was grossly barred and was not maintainable. 7. From the discussions made hereinabove and in absence of any document to establish that the petitioner was in fact prevented from raising dispute in time, this Court finds Issue nos.1 and 2 have been rightly answered against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court finds the dispute raised by the petitioner was grossly barred and was not maintainable. 7. Looking to the facts and materials available on record, it is seen that in the present case, there is no dispute that petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for more than nearly 10 years. Neither application for leave nor grant of leave could be produced to establish the case of the petitioner. Similarly, there is also no material produced by the delinquent-petitioner to at least prima facie satisfy that he was in fact ill for long, nearly 10 years, not a single scrap of medical paper produced. Further following the limitation prescribed in Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 74 of Odisha Co-operative Societies Rules, 1965 and following the decision referred to hereinabove, this Court finds not only the dispute that raised by the petitioner was grossly barred but for the service of the suspension order fixing headquarter of the petitioner in the Head Office of the Bank, claim of the petitioner that he was unaware of the proceeding remained disbelieved. If a person is already suspended on account of long absence, it is never expected that such a person will sleep at home for long 10 years to get a further communication from the employer. 8. Coming to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court finds in a case in between S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & others reported in A.I.R. 1981 SC 136, the Hon’ble Apex Court has come to hold that “if upon admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible”, then in such case, the violation of principle of natural justice, prejudice the case involved would not apply. Similarly, in the case K.L.Tripathy v. State Bank of India, (1984) 1 SCC 43 , the Hon’ble Apex Court in clear term held that not mere violation of natural justice but de facto prejudice (other than non-issue of notice) had to be proved and there must be some mere prejudice. Principle of prejudice has also been further explained in the case of State Bank of Patiala v. S.K.Sharma, A.I.R., 1996 SC 1669. Principle of prejudice has also been further explained in the case of State Bank of Patiala v. S.K.Sharma, A.I.R., 1996 SC 1669. The same principle has again been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1996 SC 2736 . 9. From the reading of the aforesaid, this Court also finds the petitioner has no case otherwise on merit also. 10. Under the circumstances and the decisions referred supra, this Court finds there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, this Court dismisses the writ petition but under the circumstance there is no order as to cost.