ORDER : 1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 02.03.2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ['Tribunal' for short] in Appeal No.88/2014 as well as the order of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies in Dispute No.308/201213 C/w. Dispute No.386/201112 dated 03.03.2014 confirmed by the Tribunal. 2. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 was serving the petitioner as a Probationary Junior Assistant. The Respondent No.3 was the joint custodian of safe locker of the petitioner, a registered society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 ['Act, 1959' for short]. It is contended that while the respondent No.3 was serving as a Probationary Junior Assistant in the petitioner society, there were serious allegations inasmuch as irregularity, misappropriation, misconduct and breach of trust against the respondent No.3. The specific allegation herein is that some gold ornaments which were kept in the bank at Kodi Bengre branch as collateral security for loans pertaining to loan account No.326/1045 and 910 were missing during the tenure of respondent No.3 as the joint custodian of safe locker i.e., from 19.07.2010 to 30.07.2011. 3. A show cause notice dated 26.10.2011 was issued to the respondent No.3 and other employees involved in the said gold missing incident and explanation was called for. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was initiated wherein the enquiry officer held the third respondent guilty of the charges leveled against him. Consequent to which, the respondent No.3 was dismissed from the service. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.3 has raised a dispute before respondent No.2 under Section 70[1][c] and 2[d] of the Act. The respondent No.2 on analyzing the material facts, passed the order dated 03.03.2014, directing the petitioner – society to reinstate the respondent No.3 in service within fifteen days from the date of passing of the order and also directed the petitioner to pay the salary and other benefits for the entire period, quashing the order passed by the enquiry officer. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the respondent No.2, the petitioner had filed appeal No.88/2014 before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Tribunal after hearing the parties, was pleased to dismiss the appeal. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the procedure prescribed by the judicial pronouncements has not been followed by the respondent No.1. The Hon’ble Tribunal after hearing the parties, was pleased to dismiss the appeal. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the procedure prescribed by the judicial pronouncements has not been followed by the respondent No.1. No preliminary issue was framed inasmuch as deciding whether the enquiry conducted was in accordance with law or not. Without framing such a preliminary issue, the respondent No.2 proceeded to hold that the enquiry was vitiated. Further, allowed the parties to examine the witnesses which is ab initio illegal. Nextly, it was contended that the evidence let in by the parties before the respondent No.1 was not available before the enquiry officer as such the earlier enquiry report could not be held to be bad in law. Thirdly, it was contended that report of the enquiry officer could not have been interfered with, by the respondent No.2 in a cavalier manner ignoring the material aspect that all the three accused including the respondent No.3 [accused No.1] had admitted the guilt and remitted the amount. The gold kept in the safe locker was missing during the tenure of the respondent No.3 holding charge of the said safe locker as a joint custodian. All these relevant aspects are not properly appreciated by the Tribunal while confirming the order of the respondent No.2. The Tribunal being last fact finding authority was obligated to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at a finding by independent application of mind. No such exercise has been done by the Tribunal. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. The Hassan Co-Operative Milk Producers’ Societies Union Limited V/s. The Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Mysore, W.P.No.25516/2010; 2. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur V/s. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, AIR 2011 SC 1931 . 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 supporting the impugned orders would submit that the respondent No.3 was not in charge of the safe locker on the date when the said missing incident is said to have been reported. The petitioner has participated in the proceedings before the respondent No.2 and adduced evidence without raising any objections. Having suffered the order now cannot challenge the same on the ground that neither the preliminary issue was framed nor the recording of evidence is unwarranted. The petitioner has participated in the proceedings before the respondent No.2 and adduced evidence without raising any objections. Having suffered the order now cannot challenge the same on the ground that neither the preliminary issue was framed nor the recording of evidence is unwarranted. The Tribunal duly considering the material facts as well as the legal aspects, has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, seeks for dismissal of writ petition. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. To put it in a nutshell, the factual aspects relevant for the purpose of the case are that, the respondent No.3 was appointed as a junior assistant on 19.02.2019 and was in a probation period. The probation was extended on 20.12.2010. The respondent No.3 was working as a junior assistant at Kodi Bengre branch from 19.07.2010 to 30.07.2011. He was transferred to Kodi branch on 30.07.2011. The manager – accused No.1 went on leave from 18.07.2011 to 31.07.2011. On 01.08.2011, the respondent No.3 has handed over the charge to Mr.Chandra Kothari – accused No.3 on 30.07.2011 and assumed charge at Kodi branch on 01.08.2011. It is the case of the accused No.3 that on trust, he has not physically inspected the safe locker and assumed the charge. The missing of gold was noticed on 17.10.2011 and on 20.10.2011 report was submitted regarding the same. Later on, it was noticed that the daily wager Sri.Dinesh had pledged the said gold with S.C.D.C.C. Saligrama Branch and collected the money. On the basis of the statement of Mr.Dinesh – daily wage employee that the respondent No.3 assisted him to remove the gold from the safe locker, proceedings were initiated against the respondent No.3 including the Manager and Mr.Chandra Kothari and all the accused were kept under suspension. But the suspension orders of the accused Nos.1 and 3 were withdrawn on compounding the offence by them. 9. In the statement of objections submitted before the respondent No.1, it is admitted by the petitioner that no criminal complaint was lodged before the competent authorities on humanitarian grounds for the reason that other accused employees had compounded the offence except the respondent No.3. 9. In the statement of objections submitted before the respondent No.1, it is admitted by the petitioner that no criminal complaint was lodged before the competent authorities on humanitarian grounds for the reason that other accused employees had compounded the offence except the respondent No.3. It is further stated that the other accused relating to the incident in question were suspended and in view of the compounding of the offence without any conditions, their suspension order was withdrawn. The main culprit Sri. Dinesh was the daily wage employee as such after recovering the losses incurred, he was removed from service. 10. It is not in dispute that the charges were leveled against the [1] manager and junior assistant [accused No.1]; [2] respondent No.3 [accused No.2]; and [3] Sri.Chandra Kothari [accused No.3] and the same reads as under: OTHER LANGUAGE 11. Thus, it is clear that though charges were framed against three accused and orders of suspension were issued, the same were withdrawn only with respect to the accused No.1 and 3 but not against the accused No.2 – respondent No.3. Much emphasis was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deposit of amount accepting the guilt by the respondent No.3 was not appreciated by the respondent No.2 and the Tribunal. It is significant to note that such deposits indeed were made by the other accused as well but disputed by the respondent No.3. For the discriminatory action taken against the respondent No.3 no positive answer is forthcoming. Mere exercise of the legal right of raising a dispute by the employee would not be construed as a disqualification. It is apparent that the respondent No.3 has been treated with a different yardstick compared to the other accused who had admitted the guilt. 12. As regards the contention that the respondent No.1 failed to frame the preliminary issue inasmuch as the enquiry report and proceeded to record the evidence, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and has adduced evidence without any protest. Having adduced evidence without insisting for framing of any preliminary issue, the petitioner is estopped from raising such technical objections at this stage. Any such objections ought to have been raised at the first available opportunity. Having adduced evidence without insisting for framing of any preliminary issue, the petitioner is estopped from raising such technical objections at this stage. Any such objections ought to have been raised at the first available opportunity. In the absence of such pleadings and arguments raised before the Appellate Tribunal, adjudication on such issue under the writ jurisdiction is unwarranted more particularly, Tribunal being the final fact finding authority. The concurrent findings expressed by the respondent No.2 and the Tribunal cannot be disturbed by the writ Court Exercising the supervisory jurisdiction on the technical aspects where the respondent No.2 and the Tribunal both have elaborately analyzed the evidence in dismissing the appeals. 13. In the case of Hassan Co-Operative Milk Producers’ Societies Union Limited supra, the question that fell for consideration before this Court was the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals under the I.D. Act to decide an industrial dispute between a society and its employees, subsequent to insertion of clause [d] in Section 70[2] of the I.D. Act. In that context, it has been held that the procedure to be followed in the case of an industrial dispute under Sections 10, 11 and 11A of the I.D. Act, would have to be applied with equal rigor and force in proceedings under Section 70 in respect of a dispute answering to the definition of an industrial dispute. The remedy which was available to a workman under a Cooperative society in respect of industrial dispute before the Labour Court is now to be availed by recourse to a dispute under Section 70 of the Act, 1959 before the Registrar. The said decision is of little assistance to the petitioner. 14. In the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipursupra, considering the interference by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court with finding of guilt on the premise that the Criminal Court subsequently acquitted the delinquent employee, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the acquittal of the delinquent employee by giving him the benefit of doubt, in the criminal proceedings will not in any way render the disciplinary proceedings invalid, not affect the validity of the finding of guilt or consequential punishment. This is more so when the departmental proceedings being more proximate to the incident, in point of time, when compared to the criminal proceedings. This is more so when the departmental proceedings being more proximate to the incident, in point of time, when compared to the criminal proceedings. The findings by the criminal court will have no effect on previously concluded domestic enquiry. This ruling would not come to the aid of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The Tribunal, last fact finding authority has categorically given a finding that the third respondent had handed over the charge of the gold articles on 30.07.2011 to Sri. Chandra Kothari and the missing of articles was traced only on 17.10.2011. So if any missing of gold is noticed as on 17.10.2011, it is only the subsequent officials who are in charge of the safe locker as on that day are responsible and not the third respondent and hence the alleged misappropriation of the gold by the third respondent during his term of office at the Kodi Bengre branch from 19.07.2010 to 30.10.2011 is held to be not proved. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly confirmed the order of the respondent No.2 in holding that the enquiry report is defective and the punitive order of dismissal issued against the respondent No.3 is arbitrary and colourable exercise. No exception can be found with the orders impugned. Writ petition is bereft of merits, accordingly stands dismissed.