JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment dated 23.10.2018, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.,in CMA No.28-S/14 of 2018, titled as Rajinder Singh versus Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited, affirming the order dated 7.9.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.6, Shimla, District Shimla,HP,in CMA No.167-6 of 2018 in Civil Suit No.101-1 of 2018, whereby an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC having been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintif), praying therein for stay of termination order dated 10.8.2018, passed by the respondent ( hereinafter referred to as the defendant- bank) during the pendency of the suit, came to be dismissed. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit (Annexure P-1) for declaration to the effect that termination order dated 10.8.2018, passed by the defendant-bank in Ref. No.StCB/ HO/Estt.Pers-1852/5530/2018-19, is bad, wrong, void abinitio and without jurisdiction. Alongwith the aforesaid suit, plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, praying therein that order referred hereinabove, may be stayed during the pendency of present suit, however, fact remains that application referred hereinabove, came to be dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.6, Shimla, H.P. Learned Civil Judge while passing aforesaid order also observed that service matters falls within the Special Domain of the Hon''ble Central Administrative Tribunal for which, applicant should have knocked the right forum for claiming the relief. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, passed by learned Civil Judge, plaintiff preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC in the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 23.10.2018. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. Certain undisputed facts, as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff after having been discharged from Indian Army Artillery as Constable came to be appointed as Sub Helper in the defendant-Bank. It is not in dispute that plaintiff was appointed against the post of Sub Helper on the basis of application made by him pursuant to the advertisement issued by the defendant-bank in the daily news paper. It is not in dispute that plaintiff was appointed against the post of Sub Helper on the basis of application made by him pursuant to the advertisement issued by the defendant-bank in the daily news paper. It is also not in dispute that plaintiff applied for the post of Sub-Helper against reserve post of exserviceman. Plaintiff at the time of making application had submitted all the documents. Since, application and documents of the plaintiff were found proper at the time of scrutiny, which was done prior to written test, he was allowed to sit in written examination. Plaintiff, who had cleared the written test, was made to participate in personal interview, whereafter on the basis of overall performance, he was offered appointment against the post of Sub Helper on contract basis. Initially, the plaintiff was appointed on contract basis, which was renewed from year to year basis. But pleadings adduced on record reveal that subsequently the services of the plaintiff were regularized against the post of Sub Helper, now termed as Peon. After regularization of the plaintiff, somebody represented to His Excellency The Governor of Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that plaintiff and other persons procured appointments from the defendant-bank by concealing material facts and as such, inquiry came to be constituted. Defendant -Bank constituted inquiry and served show cause notice to the plaintiff on 9.9.2014, calling upon him to furnish his reply. Plaintiff by way of reply refuted the allegations raised against him and reiterated that he is ex-serviceman retired from Indian Army and as such, his appointment is as per law. However, fact remains that Managing Director of the bank without taking into consideration the reply having been filed by the plaintiff, issued order of termination on 10.8.2018, whereby he was ordered to be discharged from the services on the ground that he was non ex-serviceman and as such, not entitled to claim the benefit of ex-serviceman. 6. However, fact remains that Managing Director of the bank without taking into consideration the reply having been filed by the plaintiff, issued order of termination on 10.8.2018, whereby he was ordered to be discharged from the services on the ground that he was non ex-serviceman and as such, not entitled to claim the benefit of ex-serviceman. 6. Since, in the case at hand, order of termination was passed by the Managing Director of the bank, who was otherwise as per Rule 56 of the rules relating to the terms of employment and working condition with the employees of the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited Rules, 1979, was competent authority to impose major penalty in case of employees in Grade II, III, IV, plaintiff, who otherwise would have filed appeal before him, was left with no option but to file civil suit at hand, seeking therein declaration that order discharging him from services is bad in law. 7. It would be profitable to reproduce Section 56 of the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative bank Limited hereinbelow:- " 56(a) An employee may, for acts or omissions described in chapter 11 and in rule 54 be proceeded against for awarding punishment under Rule 55 by the competent authority. The category of employees and competent authorities to award punishment are shown in the table below. Provided that where for imposing major punishment of an officer, prior permission of the Registrar is necessary in accordance with bye-laws of the Bank, such punishment would be inflicted only after the permission of the Registrar is obtained. Category of Employees Competent Authority (i) Members of Subordinate Staff (i) Dy. G.M/G.M. (ii) Employee in Grade II, III, IV (ii) Managing Director (iii)Employee in Special Grade (iii) Board of Directors and Grade-I (b) No punishment for major misconduct shall be imposed on an employee unless he is proved guilty of major misconduct in enquiry conducted in the following manner:- (I) The competent authority/Managing Director shall serve on the employee a charge sheet in Form ''A'' for major misconduct clearly setting forth the misconduct charged and the circumstances appearing against him and call for his explanation. (ii) The employee shall be given for submitting his explanation a period of atleast two weeks. (iii) If the employee accepts the charge(s) the competent authority shall award suitable punishment to him. (ii) The employee shall be given for submitting his explanation a period of atleast two weeks. (iii) If the employee accepts the charge(s) the competent authority shall award suitable punishment to him. In case of denial, the competent authority shall cause an enquiry to be conducted by an officer appointed by him for the purpose. (iv) The employees shall be allowed to defend by himself of by any other employee of the Bank, if he so desires, but an outsider shall not be allowed to conduct the defence on behalf of the delinquent employee. (v) The employee shall be permitted to produce witnesses in his defence and cross examine any witness on whose evidence the charge rests. (vi) The substance of the evidence shall be recorded and read over to the concerned employee. (vii) The Officer appointed to conduct the enquiry will complete the enquiry and submit his report within such time and any extension thereof as may be allowed by the competent authority. The enquiry report shall include the statement of witnesses adduced for and against the employee and the finding of the enquiry officer based on such evidence each charge. (viii) On receipt of the enquiry report the competent authority shall examine the findings applying his own best judgment and in awarding punishment shall not merely be lead by the findings of the enquiry officer. His order should be self speaking. (ix) The order of punishment shall be in writing and shall be issued under the signature of the competent authority or other officer authorized by him. A copy of the order passed awarding the punishment shall be given to the employee. (c) No punishment for minor misconduct shall be imposed on an employee unless he is proved guilty of minor misconduct as under:- I) The competent authority or any other office authorized by him in this regard shall give the employee a charge sheet for minor misconduct in Form ''B'' clearly stating the nature of misconduct charge and the circumstances appearing against him and call for his explanation. (ii) The employee shall be given an opportunity to submit his explanation within a period of 7 days. (iii) After the explanation is received the competent authority may look into the circumstances and pass order of punishment and if he thinks fit also make such enquiry and in such manner as he deems proper. (ii) The employee shall be given an opportunity to submit his explanation within a period of 7 days. (iii) After the explanation is received the competent authority may look into the circumstances and pass order of punishment and if he thinks fit also make such enquiry and in such manner as he deems proper. His order shall be self speaking. (d) The mode of punishment indicated in sub -rule (a) and sub-rule (b) of rule 55 is arranged in increasing order of severity.'' 8. Careful perusal of Rule 56, clearly suggests that order imposing major penalty qua the category of members of subordinate staff (plaintiff category) can be passed Dy. G.M/G.M, so that appeal, against the same, if any, is filed to the Managing Director of the Bank as envisaged in Rule 64 of the Rules, referred hereinabove. But since in the case at hand order terminating services of plaintiff came to be passed by Managing Director, who otherwise ought to have heard the appeal, if any, preferred by the plaintiff, plaintiff had no option but to file civil suit. Needless to say, plaintiff could have not laid challenge to the termination order passed by the defendant-bank by way of Civil Writ Petition, as it is a society and order passed by it is only assailable before the authority prescribed under Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited( Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules, 1979. Otherwise this Court in case titled as Shakti Chand Thakur versus State of H.P and others,2015 2 HimLR 691, has categorically held that in such like cases writ petition is not maintainable, rather Civil suit is maintainable. It would be profitable to reproduce relevant para of the judgment herein:- "6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can safely be concluded that the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against the H.P. State Co- operative Bank Ltd and even the Registrar has no power to adjudicate such kinds of disputes as the same do not touch the constitution, management or business of the Co-operative Societies. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed , leaving the petitioner to avail of any other remedy which may be available to him under the law. Costs easy." 9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed , leaving the petitioner to avail of any other remedy which may be available to him under the law. Costs easy." 9. As has been noticed hereinabove, plaintiff was given appointment on the basis of documents adduced on record by him, which were duly verified by the defendant bank at the time of offering appointment. Otherwise also, it is none of the case of the defendant-bank that plaintiff forged the documents, rather bank''s case is that plaintiff is non ex-serviceman as per his discharge card. But in terms of clause No.18.3.1(a) contained in Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Personnel Handbook on Personnel Matters Volume I (Second Edition), ex-serviceman means a person, who has been released at his own request after completing five years service in the Armed Forces of the Union. It is admitted fact that plaintiff retired from the Army at his own request after completing six years two months and 22 days service and as such,plaintiff is ex-serviceman. 10. There is another question which arises for determination is that whether services of plaintiff, who was a regular employee could be terminated without there being any regular inquiry. Answer, is No. In the instant case, it is quite apparent that bank authorities without holding regular inquiry terminated him mere on the basis of preliminary inquiry that too on the basis of the anonymous complaint made by some person to His Excellency The Governor of Himachal Pradesh that too without associating the plaintiff. Though, aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered and decided by the Court below on the basis of the totality of evidence to be led by the parties in the civil suit, however, this court is convinced and satisfied that the plaintiff on the basis of the pleadings, ably carved out a prima facie case entitling him for interim relief, as prayed for in the application. Otherwise also, balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff because admittedly he has been rendering services against the post of Sub Helper that too uninterruptedly for the last 12 years. Similarly, irreparable loss would be caused to him in case prayer made by him for interim relief is not granted. 11. Otherwise also, balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff because admittedly he has been rendering services against the post of Sub Helper that too uninterruptedly for the last 12 years. Similarly, irreparable loss would be caused to him in case prayer made by him for interim relief is not granted. 11. Leaving everything aside, this court has no hesitation to conclude that learned trial Court by rendering finding that plaintiff ought to have gone to Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of his grievance has virtually decided the suit of the plaintiff and as such, impugned