JUDGMENT ORDER Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the charge-sheet dated 22.11.1990 and the order dated 01.04.1992 dismissing the petitioner from service from the post of Manager, Sawai Madhopur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. 2. The case has a chequered history. The writ petition was filed in the year 1992. The Court vide its order dated 08.02.2006 declined to interfere in the punishment order and dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the case. 3. D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.1737/2011 was filed by the petitioner. The Division Bench vide its judgment dated 24.08.2015 allowed the appeal and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the writ was remanded to the Single Bench for adjudication afresh on merits of the case. 4. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was initially appointed as clerk on 03.08.1966 in the Sawai Madhopur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Sawai Madhopur. The petitioner was further promoted as Branch Manager by order dated 12.06.1981 and this post was held by the petitioner till the passing of the impugned order of penalty of dismissal from service. 5. The petitioner was communicated about an audit objection for the year 1989-90 informing that there was an entry relating to overdraft amounting to Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the said objection submitting that there was no irregularity committed by him. 6. The petitioner was served with an order dated 03.11.1990 placing him under suspension in contemplation of Departmental Enquiry. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 22.11.1990. There were five charges which were levelled against the petitioner but the charges related to one incident of overdraft of Rs. 10,000/- of which entry was made on 05.03.1990. The charge-sheet served to the petitioner is reproduced as hereunder:- 7. The petitioner submitted detailed reply to the charge-sheet and he denied the allegation. The petitioner explained that on 05.03.1990, amount of Rs. 10,000/- was credited in his account and on the same day i.e. on 05.03.1990, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was debited from his account. The petitioner submitted that he had not embezzled any amount and due to loss of withdrawal form, the said irregularity took place. 8. The respondent-Bank after reply of charge-sheet appointed an Enquiry Officer and started conducting the enquiry. 10,000/- was debited from his account. The petitioner submitted that he had not embezzled any amount and due to loss of withdrawal form, the said irregularity took place. 8. The respondent-Bank after reply of charge-sheet appointed an Enquiry Officer and started conducting the enquiry. The petitioner submitted an application before the Enquiry Officer dated 17.01.1991 for making a search of credit voucher and debit voucher. The petitioner requested that the said two documents must be either in the almirah/drawer/record of the bank and as the petitioner after depositing the amount of 10.05.1990 handed over the charge, he was not able to get copies of the said credit and debit voucher. 9. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and he found that charges no.1, 2 & 3 were not proved and petitioner was not held guilty for these charges. The Enquiry Officer found the charges no.4 & 5 proved. The relevant portion of the Enquiry Report dated 26.03.1991 is reproduced as hereunder:- 10. The meeting of the Board of Directors of the Bank passed resolution dated 22.07.1991. It was resolved that enquiry against the petitioner has been done and reenquiry in the matter is not required. The dissenting note of Managing Director to reenquire the matter was considered. It was further resolved that by giving warning to the petitioner, he may be reinstated back in service. The disagreement of Managing Director was also noted. 11. The petitioner was reinstated back in service by order dated 27.08.1991. However, an observation was made that the result of pending enquiry will be informed to him and petitioner has alleged that this observation was contrary to the resolution of Board of Directors. 12. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 12.03.1992 for imposing the punishment of dismissal. No reason for disagreement with Enquiry Officer was communicated to him. 13. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice and requested that he has already been reinstated as per the resolution of the Board decision dated 22.07.1991 and petitioner was posted at different Branch at Karauli. The petitioner submitted that he was required to be exonerated completely and there was no question of imposing any punishment. 14. 13. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice and requested that he has already been reinstated as per the resolution of the Board decision dated 22.07.1991 and petitioner was posted at different Branch at Karauli. The petitioner submitted that he was required to be exonerated completely and there was no question of imposing any punishment. 14. The Administrator of the respondent Bank passed impugned order dated 01.04.1992 and made a mention that by decision of the Board of Directors dated 22.07.1991, the petitioner was reinstated but the said resolution of Board of Directors was not approved by the Joint Registrar of the Cooperative Department, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur exercising his powers under Section 32 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, "the Act of 1965") by order dated 18.11.1991. 15. The respondent has filed the reply to the writ petition and justified that charge-sheet was rightly issued to the petitioner as the petitioner made an embezzlement of Rs. 10,000/- by making a false entry in his own account, and by forging another entry, he withdrew the amount. 16. The respondent has further submitted in reply that petitioner has concocted story in defence to the effect that one Shri Mathuralal Jain approached the petitioner and gave him a withdrawal slip from his account amounting to Rs. 10,000/-. No such withdrawal slip was traced in the Bank where the petitioner was the Branch Manager and in the entire record of the Bank, there was no entry about such withdrawal. The Bank has submitted that the petitioner deposited amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 10.05.1990 and it proved the charge against him. 17. It has been averred by the Bank that Board of Directors had considered the report of enquiry and gave its opinion, however, the decision of the Board was reversed by Joint Registrar by invoking powers under Section 32 of the Act of 1965. The Bank has further submitted that the petitioner appeared before the Managing Director before imposing the punishment and on 03.03.1992, the petitioner admitted his guilt and the Disciplinary Authority had full powers to accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer or not to accept. The note-sheet where the petitioner had put his signature was also placed on record. 18. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and placed on record letter dated 16.09.1993 written by him asking for copies of vouchers. The note-sheet where the petitioner had put his signature was also placed on record. 18. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and placed on record letter dated 16.09.1993 written by him asking for copies of vouchers. The letter dated 24.09.1993 is also placed on record as Annex.16 wherein Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society directed Managing Director of the Bank to supply copy of vouchers to the petitioner. 19. The petitioner thereafter during the pendency of the writ petition filed an additional affidavit dated 24.04.2000 wherein he has annexed letter dated 01.02.2000 (Annex.17) along with the photo state copies of two documents dated 05.03.1990-withdrawal slip of Shri Mathurlal Jain and credit voucher dated 05.03.1990. 20. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Senior Advocate for the petitioner has made the following submissions in support of the writ petition:- (i) The petitioner was not supplied two vital documents i.e. credit voucher and debit voucher and as such, non-supply of such document is denial of reasonable opportunity to delinquent employee and accordingly, the entire enquiry is vitiated. (ii) The appointing authority of the petitioner was Board of Directors and the Managing Director had no authority/ competence to sit over the resolution of the Board of Directors and to pass a different order. (iii) The order dated 18.11.1991 passed by joint Registrar not approving the resolution of Board of Directors is beyond the scope of Section 32 of the Act of 1965 and as such, the impugned penalty order of dismissal based on order dated 18.11.1991 is bad in eye of law. Alternatively, Mr. Sharma has said that assuming the powers are said to be conferred under Section 32, no notice was given to the petitioner by the said authority i.e. Joint Registrar before annulling the resolution of the Board of Directors. (iv) The reasons of disagreement with the findings of Enquiry Officer were not communicated to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has taken into account all the five charges while passing the order. The charges no.1, 2 & 3 having not been found proved, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have supplied reasons for disagreement with the said finding. (v) The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority are perverse as the allegation of retaining the money of Rs. 10,000/- for 66 days was without any basis as Mr. The charges no.1, 2 & 3 having not been found proved, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have supplied reasons for disagreement with the said finding. (v) The findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority are perverse as the allegation of retaining the money of Rs. 10,000/- for 66 days was without any basis as Mr. Mathuralal, the person from whose account, money was said to be withdrawn, himself stated in his statement during the enquiry that he had authorized the petitioner to withdraw the money and as such, there was no illegal retention of money by the petitioner and no embezzlement was committed by him. (vi) The Disciplinary Authority ought to have given his independent reasoning or findings while passing the impugned punishment order. The penalty order particularly when disagreeing with the report of Enquiry Officer must reflect application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority. (vii) The petitioner had rendered 20 years of service and he was Branch Manager since 1981 and he also deposited the money, the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner. 21. Mr. Sharma in support of his arguments has relied upon the judgments on the issue of recording of reasons and non-supply of copy of disagreement when Disciplinary Authority disagrees with findings of Enquiry Officer : (i) S.P. Malhotra vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., reported in 2013(7) SCC 251 , (ii) CSHA University & Anr. vs. B.D.Goyal, reported in 2010 (15) SCC 776 , (iii) Punjab National Bank & Anr. vs. K.K.Verma, reported in 2010(13) SCC 494 , (iv) Lav Nigam vs. Chairman & MD ITI Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2006(9) SCC 440 , (v) National Fertilizers Ltd. vs. P.K.Khanaa, reported in 2005(7) SCC 597 , (vi) Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 1999(7) SCC 739 , and (vii) Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in 1998(7) SCC 84 . 22. Mr. Sharma has also relied on judgments relating to nonsupply of documents: (i) State of U.P. & Os. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in 2010(2) SCC 772 , (ii) Uttar Pradesh Government vs. Sabir Hussain, reported in 1975(4) SCC 703 , (iii) Deepak Puri vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 2000(10) SCC 373 , and (iv) State of U.P. vs. Shatrughan Lal & Anr., reported in (1998)6 SCC 651 . 23. Per contra, Mr. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in 2010(2) SCC 772 , (ii) Uttar Pradesh Government vs. Sabir Hussain, reported in 1975(4) SCC 703 , (iii) Deepak Puri vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 2000(10) SCC 373 , and (iv) State of U.P. vs. Shatrughan Lal & Anr., reported in (1998)6 SCC 651 . 23. Per contra, Mr. A.K. Pareek, Adv. has submitted that the petitioner is guilty of serious charges levelled against him and petitioner posted (credited) Rs. 10,000/- in his SB account without voucher then he withdrew (deposited) on the very same day i.e. 05.10.1990 without voucher in his account. Mr. Pareek has further submitted that credit and debit entries were also not available in relevant documents like transfer scroll register, progress register, day book, etc. It is further submitted by Mr. Pareek that in order to avoid and conceal the difference, when appeared in accounts on tailing the balance of SBI accounts of Branch due to entry of Rs. 10,000/- in petitioner''s SB account, the petitioner manipulated the SBI account no.3670 of BDO by adding figure "1" before figure "2231" on page no.269 to progress register which was on page no.267 of SBI account no.3670. The petitioner is alleged to have manipulated the said account no.3670. 24. Mr. Pareek has submitted that the petitioner submitted a letter to the Bank after the punishment order was passed that before few days, vouchers were traced out at the time when other papers were searched. Mr. Pareek submitted that these vouchers were made available in dramatic manner as petitioner has filed them as Annex.17 in the writ petition. It is further submitted that vouchers have no signature of Branch Manager and as such, cannot be treated as valid voucher. 25. Mr. Pareek submitted that as per Clause 13(2)(9)(;) of the bylaws of the Bank, Managing Director disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and same was recorded in the D.E. file at note no.22. Mr. Pareek submitted that despite serious objection raised by Managing Director of the Bank, resolution was passed by the Board of Directors but same was cancelled/rescinded by the Registrar under his power vested under Section 32 of the Act of 1965. 26. Mr. Mr. Pareek submitted that despite serious objection raised by Managing Director of the Bank, resolution was passed by the Board of Directors but same was cancelled/rescinded by the Registrar under his power vested under Section 32 of the Act of 1965. 26. Mr. Pareek has submitted that if the vouchers were in existence then no such blunder would have been committed and all the entries would have been made accordingly and as such, due to non-availability of vouchers, the misappropriation of fund was proved by evidence available on record. 27. Mr. Pareek has submitted that as per bylaws of the Bank, the Managing Director was competent to conduct departmental enquiry and referred the DE to the Administrator for major punishment. He has further submitted that before imposing the penalty, the petitioner was given ample opportunity and the Disciplinary Authority was not bound to accept the reasons and finding of Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority is having full competence to take a decision contrary to the reasons given by the Enquiry Officer. 28. Mr. Pareek has relied upon the following cases : (i) Mohan Lal Jain vs. The State of Raj., reported in 1998 WLC (Raj.) UC 427 , (ii) Hukumpura GSS vs. The State of Raj., reported in 2012 (2) WLN 366 , and (iii) Bhura Lal Daroga vs. The Stte of Raj., reported in 2011(3) DNJ 1475 . 29. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and considered the entire record. 30. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner about non-supply of vital documents i.e. credit voucher and debit voucher, is said to be denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and accordingly, the departmental enquiry is said to be vitiated. 31. The Court finds that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry on the basis of documents and oral evidence produced by both the parties. The petitioner though filed an application for making search of vouchers before the Enqujiry Officer by submitting an application dated 17.01.1991, but the perusal of the enquiry report shows that Enquiry Officer asked the petitioner to inspect the bank''s record and documents and to obtain the copies of documents before filing of the reply to the charge-sheet. The petitioner by letter dated 12.01.1991 requested to inspect the relevant documents and wanted to produce letter written by Mathurlal Jain on 15.09.1990. The petitioner by letter dated 12.01.1991 requested to inspect the relevant documents and wanted to produce letter written by Mathurlal Jain on 15.09.1990. The perusal of the enquiry report further shows that on 17.01.1991, the petitioner had inspected the record in presence of Bank''s representative Mr. P.P.Gupta. The statements were also recorded of the witnesses which were produced. 32. The non-availability and non-supply of the two documents will not vitiate the enquiry by terming it as denial of reasonable opportunity. The petitioner himself has produced the said vouchers by filing an additional affidavit in the writ petition and these documents are supplied to him by letter dated 01.02.2000. The plea of the respondent-Bank that production of these documents at belated stage and the manner in which these documents were missing, raises serious doubt about the authenticity of these documents. 33. The Court finds that once these documents were admittedly not part of the record of the enquiry and documents were not traceable at the relevant time during enquiry, no adverse inference can be drawn and no illegality can be found in the departmental enquiry on this count. 34. The second contention raised by Mr. Sharma is about the competence of Managing Director to sit over the resolution of Board of Directors and to pass a different order. The Court reproduces the relevant power of the Managing Director given in the bylaws of the Cooperative Society in Clause 13(2)(9)(l)(n)(;), which reads as under:- 35. A perusal of Clause (;) shows that the Managing Director has power to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against class (n) category of employees. He can initiate disciplinary proceeding for imposing major penalty and has power to to impose all major penalties except termination of services. It is provided that for termination of services, the Managing Director would propose to the Board of Directors and he will act according to the decision/resolution of Board of Directors. The said provision clearly reveals that Managing Director has no power to sit over the resolution of Board of Directors. 36. Mr. Sharma has raised the contention that impugned penalty order of dismissal is based on an order dated 18.11.1991 passed by the Joint Registrar under Section 32 of the Act of 1965. Section 32 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 is reproduced as hereunder:- "32. Power of Registrar to rescind certain resolutions. 36. Mr. Sharma has raised the contention that impugned penalty order of dismissal is based on an order dated 18.11.1991 passed by the Joint Registrar under Section 32 of the Act of 1965. Section 32 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 is reproduced as hereunder:- "32. Power of Registrar to rescind certain resolutions. - (1) If in the opinion of the Registrar, any resolution passed at the meeting of any co-operative society or committee thereof is opposed to the objects of the society or is prejudicial to the interests of the society, or is in excess of the powers of the society, the Registrar, after giving the co-operative society an opportunity of being heard, may by order in writing rescind the resolution in whole or in part specifying the reasons therefor. (2) On receipt of an intimation from the Registrar, of his proposal to rescind the resolution under subsection (1), the said resolution shall cease to have effect until the Registrar passes final orders in the matter." 37. The Courts finds that the power of Registrar given under Section 32 is in respect of three contingencies: (i) the resolution passed is opposed to the objects of the Society, (ii) Prejudicial to the interest of the Society and (iii) is in excess of the power of the Society. In the opinion of the Court where disciplinary proceedings are initiated under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, any order passed by the competent Disciplinary Authority cannot be subject to approval by the Registrar under the powers given to him under Section 32. 38. The wide term/power conferred on the Registrar to consider resolution as prejudicial to the interest of the Society, cannot be stretched to the extent of bringing the disciplinary proceedings under the said power. The CCA Rules, 1958 provide the complete procedure for holding the departmental enquiry and the "competent/disciplinary authority" are also defined. 39. The power to initiate the disciplinary proceedings upto the stage of imposing the penalty or exonerating an employee, cannot be read as has been pleaded by counsel for the respondent. In the opinion of the Court, once the resolution of Board of Directors was passed, the order dated 18.11.1991 is absolutely without jurisdiction. 39. The power to initiate the disciplinary proceedings upto the stage of imposing the penalty or exonerating an employee, cannot be read as has been pleaded by counsel for the respondent. In the opinion of the Court, once the resolution of Board of Directors was passed, the order dated 18.11.1991 is absolutely without jurisdiction. The Court further finds that before invoking power under Section 32 by the Joint Registrar, even no notice was given to the delinquent and decision was taken to rescind the resolution partially. 40. The relevant portion of the order dated 18.11.1991 relating to resolution No.20 dated 22.07.1991 is reproduced as hereunder:- 41. The perusal of decision from the order dated 18.11.1991 in respect of Resolution no.20 further reveals that Joint Registrar had also mentioned that petitioner was to be reinstated back in service but disciplinary proceedings were not to be dropped because such kind of dropping of the proceedings encourage the persons who commit embezzlement/misappropriation and an example of two more persons, who did the same thing, was given. In the opinion of the Court, even the decision of Joint Registrar exercising powers under Section 32, did not permit the respondent-Bank to pass the impugned order of dismissal from service. 42. Mr. Sharma has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority did not give the reasons of disagreement with the Enquiry Officer and no communication was made about own conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary Authority and reasons of disagreement thereof. 43. The Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority has acted illegally by passing the impugned order. The Disciplinary Authority was required to communicate the reasons of disagreement and petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to file his objection/reply/explanation in respect of such disagreement. The communication of such disagreement-note was further more required in the instant case as the charges no.1, 2 & 3 which were not found to be proved by Enquiry Officer, have all been found to be proved by the Disciplinary Authority while passing the impugned order. It is trite law that the Disciplinary Authority is required to supply reasons of disagreement with Enquiry Officer to the delinquent employee. In absence of same, the impugned order cannot be sustained in eye of law. 44. The Apex Court in the case of S.P.Malhotra vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. It is trite law that the Disciplinary Authority is required to supply reasons of disagreement with Enquiry Officer to the delinquent employee. In absence of same, the impugned order cannot be sustained in eye of law. 44. The Apex Court in the case of S.P.Malhotra vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (supra) has laid down the law that nonfurnishing copy of recorded reasons for disagreement from enquiry report prejudices delinquent. The relevant paras are reproduced as hereunder:- "7. The appellant challenged the said orders of punishment by filing a Writ Petition No. 1201 of 1988 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The said writ petition was contested by the respondent Bank. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition vide judgment and order dated 20.5.2011, holding that in case the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, he must record reasons for the dis-agreement and communicate the same to the delinquent seeking his explanation and after considering the same, the punishment could be passed. In the instant case, as such a course had not been resorted to, the punishment order stood vitiated." "17 In Canara Bank & Ors. vs. Shri Debasis Das & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 2041 , this Court explained the ratio of the judgment in Kunj Behari Misra (supra), observing that it was a case where the disciplinary authority differed from the view of the Inquiry Officer. "26.....In that context, it was held that denial of opportunity of hearing was per se violative of the principles of natural justice. ( Debasis Das case, (2003) SCC p. 578, para 26)" 18. In fact, not furnishing the copy of the recorded reasons for disagreement from the enquiry report itself causes the prejudice to the delinquent and therefore, it has to be understood in an entirely different context than that of the issue involved in ECIL (supra)." 45. Mr. Sharma has pointed out that there is another glaring illegality in the impugned order as the Disciplinary Authority did not give his finding on each charge, and the penalty order reflects non-application of mind. The Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority has reproduced the charges and did not give specific finding how the charges no.1, 2 & 3 were proved. Sharma has pointed out that there is another glaring illegality in the impugned order as the Disciplinary Authority did not give his finding on each charge, and the penalty order reflects non-application of mind. The Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority has reproduced the charges and did not give specific finding how the charges no.1, 2 & 3 were proved. It is trite law that in disciplinary proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is required to apply its mind to the entire facts of the record of enquiry and has to give separate findings on the each charge, if delinquent has committed misconduct relating to the charge levelled against him. 46. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was given ample opportunity and the Disciplinary authority was not bound to accept the reasons and findings of Enquiry Officer, the Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority can always differ with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, however, there is a necessity to record reasons and to communicate the same to the delinquent employee. The office file containing the note-sheets produced by counsel for the respondent-Bank wherein para 22 reveals that on 04.04.1991 after receipt of report of Enquiry Officer dated 26.03.1991, the Managing Director by his order dated 04.04.1991 had recommended de-novo enquiry. 47. The plea of counsel for the respondent that the petitioner had appeared in response to the show-cause notice of proposed penalty before the respondent and admitted his guilt, the perusal of para 38 of the record of enquiry shows that the petitioner had admitted that he had received the copy of the enquiry report and the petitioner is alleged to have said that the finding of the enquiry report is accepted by him and he admitted that there was an error and negligence on his part, and he expressed his regret, the Court finds that such kind of recording of admission of the petitioner, is of no significance as the impugned order has already been found to be illegal and not sustainable. 48. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of Mohan Lal Jain vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra). The Court in the said judgment was dealing with scope of Sections 32 and 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and the primary question was with respect to the abolition of post of Assistant Secretary and Accountant. (supra). The Court in the said judgment was dealing with scope of Sections 32 and 75 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and the primary question was with respect to the abolition of post of Assistant Secretary and Accountant. The Court found that after abolition of post of Accountant, the Bank could dispense with service of the petitioner in that case. The said case did not deal with the scope of powers of the Registrar under Section 32 relating to the disciplinary matters. 49. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of of Hukumpura Gram Sewa Sehkari Samiti Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), relates to power exercised by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 125(1) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, where the resolution of the Society was stayed, about pay-scale to be given to its employees. The Court in the said case directed the parties to approach the Tribunal to exercise its power under Section 125(3) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. The said case also does not apply to the present controversy in the instant case. 50. The case reported in Bhura Lal Daroga vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) also relates to dispute with regard to the salary of an employee and resolution being passed by the Society, where the Deputy Registrar exercising his power under Section 125(1) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001, stayed the resolution of the governing body of Cooperative Society. The said case also does not apply to the present controversy. 51. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition deserves acceptance and the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.04.1992 (Annx.13) is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled for 50% of back-wages till his age of superannuation. The petitioner would further be entitled for his post retiral benefits in accordance with law.