ORDER 1. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent No.3 in the matter that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate Authority in terms of the rules, but the petitioner without availing the alternative and efficacious remedy has directly approached this Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not maintainable. It is submitted that the order impugned is a well reasoned and justified order passed under the relevant provisions of the Act and by the competent authority. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the order is not passed by the competent authority then the aforesaid ground can be taken care of by the appellate Authority. 2. The petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 26.9.2019 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner’s service as a Samiti Prabandak has been terminated on account of alleged grave misconduct committing a clerical mistake while discharging his duties. It is stated that the impugned order has been passed without following the due procedure of law as contemplated in the statutory recruitment Rules known as Zila Sahakari Kendriya Banko Ke Sewayukto Ke (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Karya Stithi) Sewa Niyam. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner could have only been considered by the Departmental Inquiry Board as defined in the Seva Niyam, who is the only competent authority to conduct inquiry as per the procedure in the Human Resources Policy framed under the Sewa Niyam. It is submitted that once the order impugned is passed by incompetent authority therefore, the alternative remedy of filing an appeal will be of no hindrance to the petitioner to prefer a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others [ (1998)8 SCC 1 ]. In such circumstances the petition directly before this court for want of alternative remedy is maintainable. 3. In such circumstances the petition directly before this court for want of alternative remedy is maintainable. 3. It is further submitted that in terms of the law laid down in the case of Sevaram v. Board of Revenue [1983 RN 353] the provisions of Sewa Niyam governing the service conditions of the employees, particularly with respect to the disciplinary proceedings are statutory in nature, therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. He has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Rajya Sahakari Bank v. State of M.P. and others [ 2007 (12) SCC 529 .] 4. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the rival parties and considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra), as well as M.P. Rajya Sahkari Bank (supra), the petition is held to be maintainable. 5. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Samiti Prabandhak on 15.1.1998 in the respondent No.3 establishment. In exercise of powers under section 55 (1) of the Act of 1960, the respondent No.2 has framed the Sewa Niyam, which are having a statutory force in view of the Full Bench judgment in the case of Sewaram (supra). On 28.9.2015 the petitioner while performing his duties has committed a clerical mistake in the letter for sanctioning the premium amount of crop insurance of 139 farmers. The petitioner has mistakenly entered the amount of Rs.14,73,000/- in place of Rs.1,47, 30,000/- while rounding off Rs.1,47,38,240/-. As a result of which, premium of Rs.51,555/- was sanctioned in place of Rs.5,15,834/-. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the respondent no.3 and on 4.2.2007 a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner with respect to his clerical mistake and was directed to remain present on 15.2.2017 and to produce the reply and the documents in support of his contentions. The reply was duly submitted by the petitioner on 15.2.2017. Again on 9.8.2019 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he was directed to remain present on 20.8.2019. On 19.8.2019 the petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter the impugned order Annexure P/1 has been passed, whereby the decision was taken to terminate the service of the petitioner and the recovery of the amount of loss caused to the respondents has been directed to be made from the petitioners. On 19.8.2019 the petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter the impugned order Annexure P/1 has been passed, whereby the decision was taken to terminate the service of the petitioner and the recovery of the amount of loss caused to the respondents has been directed to be made from the petitioners. It is submitted that without following the due process of law as contemplated under Rule 49 of the Sewa Niyam the impugned order of termination and recovery has been passed by the Authorities. Admittedly the financial irregularity in question in the present matter exceeds Rs.10 Lacs and as per rule 49 the Disciplinary Inquiry Board should have been constituted to conduct an inquiry into the matter. The aforesaid aspect was considered by this court in the case of W.P.No.1970/2019 (Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of M.P. and others) decided on 1.10.2019, wherein while considering the rule 49 of the Zila Sahakari Kendriya Banko Ke Sewayukto Ke (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Karya Stithi) Sewa Niyam and considering the Full Bench judgment in the case of Sewaram (supra), has finally allowed the writ petition considering rule 2.2.1 of Seva Niyam and 49.3.2.3. and liberty was extended to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so desired. It is argued that the controversy in the present case is fully covered by the order passed by this Court in the case of Ramavtar Sharma. He has prayed for a similar relief to be extended to him. 6. Per contra counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has vehemently opposed the contentions and has argued that apart from the alternative remedy available to the petitioner before the appellate Board, the appeal before the Board of Director of the respondent- Bank in terms of rules of 59.1.3 of Sewa Niyam, he is having an alternative remedy available to him under rule 55 (2) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It is contended that the order impugned has rightly been passed. The same does not call for any interference in the present writ petition. It is contended that the order impugned has rightly been passed. The same does not call for any interference in the present writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has deliberately concealed the fact that after serving show cause notice dated 4.2.2017 one member inquiry committee was set up by the respondent-Bank, whereby Neeraj Mehra, Branch Manager was appointed as inquiry Officer, who conducted inquiry on account of mistake of sanctioning a premium amount of crop insurance of 139 farmers who found him guilty on the basis of facts. It is submitted that in terms of rule 47.1.9 and 47.1.13 of Sewa Niyam the Act of the petitioner has resulted into great financial loss to its members which comes within the purview of 47.1.2 and 47.1.20 amounts to major misconduct on his part. Therefore, the decision taken by the authorities to terminate the services has rightly been taken. It is argued that the petitioner has virtually admitted his fault by filing a reply stating that due to clerical error the aforesaid irregularity has been committed by the petitioner. Therefore, once the admission on the part of the petitioner no further inquiry is required in the matter. The authority passing the impugned order is duly competent to pass the termination order of the petitioner no requirement for sending the matter to the Board. In such circumstances, no illegality stated to have been committed by the respondents. It is further contended that from the order impugned it is seen that opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was provided, he has filed reply to the show cause notice, issued to him and the authority after going to the reply to the show cause notice issued to him and the authority after going to the reply to the show cause notice has passed the impugned order. Thus, the principle of natural justice are duly followed in the matter. In such circumstances, the order impugned has rightly been passed does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having limited jurisdiction to go into the disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In such circumstances, the order impugned has rightly been passed does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having limited jurisdiction to go into the disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The Constitution of Board is provided in the Rules which comprises of following members: foHkkxh; tkap cksMZ foHkkxh; tkap dh lekfIr tkap dh lekfIr ij viuk Áfrosnu vius Li"V vuq’kalk lfgr ftyk cSad Áca/ku dks lkSaisxkA foHkkxh; tkap cksMZ vius lapkyu ds fu;e Lo;a cuk,xkA foHkkxh; tkap eaMy ds fuEu lnL; gksaxs %& Øe la[;k inuke gSfl;r 1- Áca/kd v/;{k 2- cSad lsok;qDr tks fd ofj"B Áca/ku&2 dh Js.kh ls fuEu Js.kh dk u gks lnL; 3- cSad lsok;qDr tks fd e/;e Áca/ku&1 dh Js.kh ls fuEu Js.kh dk u gks lnL; 9. From perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner was put to disciplinary inquiry in pursuance to the misconduct committed by him while serving in the respondent-department. The Branch Manager/inquiry Officer has conducted the entire inquiry into the matter and the inquiry report is submitted to the Chief Executive Officer, Vidisha, who has passed the impugned order. It is seen from the reply that one member inquiry committee was set up by the respondent-Bank, whereby Neeraj Mehra, Branch Manager was appointed as a inquiry officer to conduct the inquiry against the petitioner. It is argued by the petitioner that when the amount of embezzlement is more than Rs.10 Lacs then the disciplinary inquiry board is required to conduct an inquiry into the matter. It is argued by the petitioner that when the amount of embezzlement is more than Rs.10 Lacs then the disciplinary inquiry board is required to conduct an inquiry into the matter. Clause 2.2.1 of the Rules is required to be seen which is as under: ^^2-2-1 ^^foHkkxh; tkap cksMZ** ls rkRi;Z ftyk lgdkjh dsUæh; cSad e;kZfnr ds lsok;qDrksa ds fo:) vkjksfir xaHkhj nqjkpj.k dh #i;s 10-00 yk[k ls vf/kd dh foRrh; vfu;ferrkvksa ls lacaf/kr foHkkxh; tkap iw.kZ djus gsrq xfBr foHkkxh; tkap cksMZ ls gS] ftls cSadksa ds l{ke vf/kdkjh] tkap vfèkdkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr djsaxsA** Clause 49.3.2.3 is also relevant which reads as under: ^^49-3-2-3 ftyk lgdkjh dsUæh; cSad ds leLr foHkkxh; tkap Ádj.k #i;s 10-00 yk[k ;k mlls vf/kd dh vfu;ferrkvksa ds foHkkxh; tkap Ádj.kksa esa tkap vf/kdkjh ds nkf;Ro fuoZgu gsrq ,d foHkkxh; tkap cksMZ gksxk] tks viuh ÁfØ;k fu/kkZfjr dj] ml Áfdz;k ls tkap iw.kZ djsxkA 'ks"k Ádj.kksa esa foHkkxh; tkap dh ÁfØ;k eŒÁŒ 'kklu esa bl gsrq fu/kkZfjr ÁfØ;k ls tkap dk fujkdj.k fd;k tkosxkA** 10. It is argued that the aforesaid rules are not been followed while considering the case of the petitioner and his services has been terminated which is a major misconduct and the authorities to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner with respect to the disciplinary inquiry board as the amount of embezzlement is pointed out more than 10 Lacs. It is seen that in some of the cases the constitution of Board in terms of the aforesaid rules was done by the authorities, but the Board constituted is not in accordance with the rules. In the present case no Board was constituted and the committee was not constituted in accordance with the disciplinary inquiry rules. 11. The identical issue was considered by this court in the case of Ramavtar Sharma (supra), wherein this court has held as under: “7. A bare perusal of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 reveals that the total amount in dispute is Rs. 17,49,958.74/- which is certainly above Rs. 10 lacs. 11. The identical issue was considered by this court in the case of Ramavtar Sharma (supra), wherein this court has held as under: “7. A bare perusal of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 reveals that the total amount in dispute is Rs. 17,49,958.74/- which is certainly above Rs. 10 lacs. In this regard, rule 2.2.1 of the Seva Niyam reads thus:- ^^2-2-1 ^^foHkkxh; tkap cksMZ^^ ls rkRi;Z ftyk lgdkjh dsUæh; cSad e;kZfnr ds lsok;qDrksa ds fo:) vkjksfir xaHkhj nqjkpj.k dh #i;s 10-00 yk[k ls vf/kd dh foRrh; vfu;ferrkvksa ls lacaf/kr foHkkxh; tkap iw.kZ djus gsrq xfBr foHkkxh; tkap cksMZ ls gS] ftls cSdksa ds l{ke vfèkdkjh] tkap vfèkdkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr djsaxsA** From the above, it is clear that rule 2.2.1 defines Departmental Enquiry Board, which needs to be constituted for major misconducts of employees with regard to financial irregularities of more than Rs. 10 lacs. Admittedly, no such Board has been constituted in the instant case and no enquiry as contemplated under rule 49.3.2.3 has been conducted. For ready reference, the same is quoted thus:- ^^49-3-2-3 ftyk lgdkjh dsUæh; cSad ds leLr foHkkxh; tkap Ádj.k #i;s 10-00 yk[k ;k mlls vf/kd dh vfu;ferrkvksa ds foHkkxh; tkap Ádj.kksa esa tkap vf/kdkjh ds nkf;Ro fuoZgu gsrq ,d foHkkxh; tkap cksMZ gksxk] tks viuh ÁfØ;k fu/kkZfjr dj] ml ÁfØ;k ls tkap iw.kZ djsxkA 'ks"k Ádj.kksa esa foHkkxh; tkap dh ÁfØ;k eŒÁ 'kklu esa bl gsrq fu/kkZfjr ÁfØ;k ls tkap dk fujkdj.k fd;k tkosxkA** As such, the impugned order is completely without jurisdiction and, therefore, availability of alternative remedy would not be a bar in the light of dictum of the apex Court in the case of Whirlpool (supra). 8. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. However, they shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. It is made clear that if any proceedings are initiated against the petitioner, the same shall be concluded, in accordance with law, within three months of their inception.” 12. In such circumstances, the order impugned is perse illegal arbitrary and is unsustainable in the eyes of law and is also contrary to the rules. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. It is made clear that if any proceedings are initiated against the petitioner, the same shall be concluded, in accordance with law, within three months of their inception.” 12. In such circumstances, the order impugned is perse illegal arbitrary and is unsustainable in the eyes of law and is also contrary to the rules. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. As this court has already granted interim relief to the petitioner on 8.11.2019, the petitioner be reinstated in service forthwith, however, the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law and in terms of the Zila Sahakari Kendriya Banko Ke Sewayukto Ke (Niyojan, Nibandhan Tatha Karya Stithi) Sewa Niyam. In case, any proceedings are initiated against the petitioner by the respondents no.3 then the same shall be concluded in accordance with law within the period of three months of their inception. 13. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands allowed and disposed of.