JUDGMENT 1. This intra-Court appeal, filed u/S.2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, assails the final order dated 25.1.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.1185/2021 by the learned Single Bench while exercising writ jurisdiction u/Art.226 of Constitution dismissing the petition in question on the ground of failure of petitioner/appellant to avail alternative, statutory remedy of approaching the Co-operative Tribunal. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner/appellant and learned State counsel are heard on the question of admission and final disposal. 3. Challenge in this petition is to the order of penalty of reversion to the lower post inflicted after conduction of disciplinary proceedings. 4. To avoid an obstacle of alternative remedy u/S.55 of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for brevity “1960 Act”) or before the M.P. Co-operative Tribunal constituted u/S.77 of the 1960 Act, learned counsel for petitioner/appellant submitted that said penalty order was passed by Registrar in his capacity as the Administrator of the Co-operative society in question and since dispute u/S.55 of the 1960 Act lies before the Registrar, said remedy is not efficacious. 4.1 As regards, alternative remedy available before the Tribunal u/S.77 (14) of the 1960 Act, learned counsel for the appellant submits that said remedy is also not efficacious since it is akin to the remedy of revision which is comparatively constricted than the remedy of appeal, and thus is also not efficacious. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly remedy of appeal is not available to the petitioner/appellant since the order sought to be assailed is passed by the Registrar (though in a different capacity) who is also the appellate authority and therefore remedy of dispute u/S.55 of 1960 Act is illusionary. 6. Though the remedy is available u/S.77(14) but the same is not as wide as an appeal. 7. The case in hand is that of penalty inflicted after conduction of detailed disciplinary proceedings. Thus, various disputed questions of fact would arise in the process of adjudication to the challenge to the said order of penalty. Thus, the question before this Court is as to which of the two remedies i.e. u/Art.226 of the Constitution or u/S.77(14) of 1960 Act would be more efficacious for the petitioner to avail in the attending facts of the case? 8. Thus, the question before this Court is as to which of the two remedies i.e. u/Art.226 of the Constitution or u/S.77(14) of 1960 Act would be more efficacious for the petitioner to avail in the attending facts of the case? 8. It is settled law that writ jurisdiction ordinarily is not invoked where disputed questions of fact arise as the case herein. Whereas the Tribunal u/S.77(14) can very well look into the legality or propriety of the decision challenged on the factual and as well as legal front. Moreso, the remedy of writ is highly discretionary and can be denied for certain compelling reasons despite the issue raised being solely legal whereas on the other hand the remedy u/S.77(14) is not as discretionary as that of u/Art.226 of the Constitution. The Tribunal once faced with an application filed u/S.77(14) of 1960 Act is to decide on the question as to whether the order assailed can pass the test of law and propriety. 9. The offshoot of the above discussion is that the remedy available to the petitioner u/S.77(14) is comparatively wider than the remedy u/Art.226 of the Constitution and thus more efficacious for the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate not to disturb the order of learned Single Judge and dismisses the present writ appeal with the said liberty as afforded by the learned Single Judge.