JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this Writ Petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "a. That the impugned order contained in Annexure P-6 may kindly be quashed and set aside. Consequently, dismissing the appeal filed by respondent No.4. b. That the record of the case may kindly be called for. c. That the appointment of respondent NO.4 may kindly be declared as null and void as the same has not been approved by respondent No.3 as is required under Rule 56 (3) of Himachal Pradesh Co-Op. Societies Rules". 2. Facts necessary for decision of this petition are that private respondent before this Court stood appointed as salesman by the petitioner-Society. As allegedly certain acts or omissions stood committed by him, therefore, the Society initiated process for dispensing with his services. 3. Initially, process so initiated culminated into issuance of order (Annexure P-3) dated 07.01.2013, passed by Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Bilaspur, H.P., vide which in view of the observations so contained in the said order, the Authority concerned ordered that by taking a lenient view and on assurance given by the private respondent that he would comply with all the instructions and directions of the petitioner-Society, his services were ordered to be reinstated with immediate effect with a further direction that the period of suspension be treated as duty period. 4. It appears that as the petitioner-Society was not satisfied with the performance of the private respondent, purportedly for want of compliance of the directions which were passed by the Authority concerned vide Annexure P-3, a fresh Show Cause Notice was issued to the private respondent by the petitioner-Society on 08.03.2013, seeking his response as to why action be not taken against him. Response to the same stood filed by the private respondent. As the petitioner-Society was not satisfied with the response, it terminated the services of the private respondent vide order dated 08.05.2013. 5. Feeling aggrieved, private respondent preferred an appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, which stood allowed vide impugned order Ext.P-4, dated 13.04.2013. This order stands assailed by the petitioner-Society by way of present petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as well as pleadings and documents appended with the pleadings. 7. This order stands assailed by the petitioner-Society by way of present petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as well as pleadings and documents appended with the pleadings. 7. On the previous date of hearing, record of present case was also requisitioned, which also stands perused by the Court. 8. A perusal of order dated 01.10.2014 demonstrates that primarily what weighed with the learned Appellate Authority, while allowing the appeal so filed by the private respondent was that termination of the services of the private respondent was in violation of the provisions of Employment and Working Conditions of the Employees of the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies, 2001, so framed by the State in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Rules 56 of the H.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971. 9. Learned Appellate Authority held that in terms of Rules 19 (1) (v), termination required prior approval of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, which was missing in the present case. On this count, order of termination of the petitioner-Society stands set-aside by the Appellate Authority. 10. In my considered view, the order which has been passed by the learned Appellate Authority suffers from no infirmity. This is for the reason that admittedly, Rule 19 (1) (v) (supra) envisages that employee shall be awarded after holding detail enquiry, any one of the punishments as stands mentioned therein in case he is found guilty of mis-conducts, apart from recovery of actual dues or damages caused by him to the Society. The punishments which are so envisaged in Rule 19 (1) (v), contain the authority to terminate the services of the private respondent. However, there is a caveat in Rule 19 (1) (v) to the effect that before ordering termination, approval of Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, has to be obtained. 11. It is not in dispute that after the initiation of the proceedings which resulted into the termination of the service of private respondent i.e. Show Cause Notice dated 08.03.2013, no prior approval of Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies was obtained before passing order of termination dated 08.03.2013. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no necessity to obtain any such order, because before issuance of Show Cause Notice, such approval should obtained from Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies. 13. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no necessity to obtain any such order, because before issuance of Show Cause Notice, such approval should obtained from Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies. 13. Learned Counsel for the private respondent has seriously disputed this fact inter alia on the ground that there was no occasion for the Co-operative Society to have had obtained any such approval because in the previous proceedings, private respondent was only placed under suspension and there was no order of termination either passed or envisaged against him at any stage which would have had brought into motion the provisions of Rule 19 (1) (v). 14. Be that as it may, in my considered view, assuming that there was a previous approval taken from the Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies by the petitioner-Society in terms of Rule 19 (1) (v), even then the same could not have been or used by the Co-operative Societies for terminating the service of the private respondent post issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated 08.03.2013. I say so for the reason that when Show Cause Notice dated 08.03.2013 was issued by the Co-operative Society to the private respondent, a fresh cause of action accrued in favour of the Co-operative Society, which in fact lead to the issuance of the said Show Cause Notice. If post detailed inquiry, as is envisaged in Rule 19 (1) (v), the Society came to the conclusion that the services of the private respondent were to be terminated, then it was at this stage that approval of the Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies was required. In my considered view, the reason as to why this provision exists, is that the Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies has to apply its mind as to whether the proposed termination is sustainable on the basis of material on record or not. In other words, the necessity of seeking approval from Assistant Registrar is not a formality as there is a rational as to why said condition stands imposed. It is to rule out arbitrariness in the decision of the Society. Admittedly, in this case, said provision was not followed. This vitiates the termination of the private respondent. In other words, the necessity of seeking approval from Assistant Registrar is not a formality as there is a rational as to why said condition stands imposed. It is to rule out arbitrariness in the decision of the Society. Admittedly, in this case, said provision was not followed. This vitiates the termination of the private respondent. Therefore, because of non-compliance of said condition contained in the Rule, the act of the Society of terminating the services of the private respondent is not sustainable in the eyes of law and learned Appellate Authority has rightly set aside the order so passed by the Co-operative Society. 15. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed without interfering with the order so passed by the learned Appellate Authority, however, with liberty to the petitioner-Society to proceed with the process of inquiry against the private respondent in accordance with law, post receipt of response to the Show Cause Notice. In case, the petitioner- Society intends to take the proceedings to their logical conclusion, then it is expected that needful shall positively be done within three months. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any, also stand disposed of. Inter order, if any, stands vacated.