ORDER 1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order dated 5.11.2019 passed by the M.P. Cooperative Tribunal Bhopal in Second Appeal No.49/2013, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent no.1-Society was allowed and the order dated 11.7.2011 and 17.4.2013 passed by the Assistant Registrar and Joint Registrar (being First Appellate Authority) were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Asstt. Registrar with a direction to decide the case on its own merits after properly exhibiting the documents and adducing evidence in the aforesaid regard and after framing issues. 2. Assailing the said orders to be bad in law it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both Asstt. Registrar as well as Joint Registrar in their orders found that the order of removal of the petitioner was stigmatic in nature and was issued without giving any opportunity of hearing or conducting any enquiry, therefore, the order of removal of the petitioner was bad in law. It has further been argued that the society in its written statement preferred before the Asstt. Registrar in para 3 has specifically admitted that for the cause committed by the petitioner he could not have been saddled with major punishment and further in para 5 to 9 though have not denied the claim of the petitioner and had just have denied the contents of the paragraphs, thus, in a way had supportedw the case of the petitioner, but even then the learned Tribunal on the certain procedural aspects has set aside the order dated 11.7.2011 passed by the Asstt. Registrar and 17.4.2011 passed by the Joint Registrar and has remanded the matter back which is perse illegal. 3. Counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance in the matter of Gulab Singh v. District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit Gwalior and others passed in W.P.No.1643 of 2021 on 28.4.2023 = 2023 (2) RN 307 had submitted that this Court while referring to the Karamchari Seva Niyam framed under section 55 (1) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 has held that as per rule 28 and 29 any delinquent employee who has been charged of serious misconduct will not be punished until and unless the person authorized conducted an enquiry. Thus, in wake of the clear stipulation made in the aforesaid Rules it is clear that without following due procedure no penalty could have been imposed and since the very dismissal of the petitioner from service was in-violation of the statutory rules and the principle of natural justice has not been followed, the order of his termination was bad in law which has rightly been considered by the Asstt. Registrar and Joint Registrar. But, ignoring the aforesaid legal position alleging non-compliance of certain procedural aspects the learned Tribunal has set aside those orders and remitted the matter back to Asstt. Registrar which is bad in law. Thus, on the aforesaid ground it has been contended that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the order impugned dated 5.11.2019 passed by the M.P. Cooperative Tribunal Bhopal is liable to be set aside. 4. None for the respondents even after service of notice. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record as well as after going through the impugned order this Court find strength in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The dismissal of the present petitioner from the service who was working as Salesman in the respondent No.1-Society was in utter violation of legal provisions as well as against principle of natural justice. As per rule 28 and 29 of Karamchari Seva Niyam framed under section 55 (1) of the Act the delinquent employee who has been charged of serious misconduct could not be punished until and unless the enquiry is conducted and opportunity of hearing is granted. As per rule 28 and 29 of Karamchari Seva Niyam framed under section 55 (1) of the Act the delinquent employee who has been charged of serious misconduct could not be punished until and unless the enquiry is conducted and opportunity of hearing is granted. For ready reference rule 28 and 29 are quoted herein-below: 28- fdlh deZpkjh dks ml ij vkjksfir xaHkhj nqjkpj.k ds fy, rc rd nf.Mr ugha fd;k tkosxk tc rd fd tkap gsrq vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh }kjk fuEukuqlkj tkap djds deZpkjh ds fo:) nqjkpj.k dk nks"k fl) ugha dj fn;k tkrk%& ¼1½ l{ke vf/kdkjh vFkok mlds }kjk vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh deZpkjh dks ifjf'k"V 4 esa fn;s Ák:i esa xaHkhj nqjkpj.k ds fy;s vkjksi i= nsxk vkSj lk/kkj.k nqjkpj.k ds fy;s ifjf'k"V 5 esa fn;s Ák:i esa vkjksi i= nsxkA vkjksi i= esa nqjkpj.k dk rFkk mlds fo:) ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk Li"V mYys[k fd;k tkosxk vkSj mldk Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk tkosxkA ¼2½ deZpkjh dks mldk Li"Vhdj.k ÁLrqr djus gsrq le;] tks fd dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= esa fufnZ"V gksxk] fn;k tkosxkA ¼3½ deZpkjh dks viuk cpko Lo;a djus vFkok bl gsrq laLFkk ds fdlh vU; deZpkjh dh lgk;rk ysus dh vuqefr gksxhA fdUrq fdlh ckgjh O;fDr dks deZpkjh ds cpko gsrq iSjoh djus dh vuqefr ugha gksxhA ¼4½ dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= mRrj ÁkIr gksus ij] mldk nLrkosth; ijh{k.k fd;k tkosxk ,oa mRrj larqf"Vdkjd ugha ik;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa fuUukuqlkj foHkkxh; tkap dh dk;Zokgh ÁkjaHk dh tk,xhA ¼5½ l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk vkjksiksa dh foHkkxh; tkap gsrq ,sls O;fDr dh fu;qfDr dh tkosxh] tks vkjksih deZpkjh ls inuke esa ofj"B gks lkFk gh vkjksiksa ds i{k leFkZu esa rF; ÁLrqr djus gsrq ÁLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh dh fu;qfDr dh tkosxhA l{ke vf/kdkjh vFkok vf/kd`r vf/kdkjh }kjk vkjksih deZpkjh dks vkjksiksa dk Li"V mYys[k djrs gq, ,oa nLrkost o xokg dh lwph tks vkjksiksa dh iqf"V djrs gksa] layXu djrs gq, vkjksi i= tkjh fd;k tkosxk ,oa mldk mRrj izkIr fd;k tkosxkA ¼6½ ;fn vkjksih vf/kjksfir vkjksiksa dks vLohdkj djrk gS rks ÁLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh vkjksiksa dks fl) djus gsrq xokg ,oa vko';d nLrkost ÁLrqr djsxkA ¼7½ ÁLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh ds i{k leFkZu iw.kZ gksus ds mijkar vkjksih deZpkjh dks vius cpko esa i{k leFkZu gsrq rF; ,oa xokg ÁLrqr djus dk leqfpr volj Ánku fd;k tkosxkA ¼8½ tkap vf/kdkjh] foHkkxh; tkap ÁfØ;k dk ikyu djrs gq, mHk; i{kksa }kjk ÁLrqr Lkk{;ksa o rF;ksa dh foospuk dj tkap Áfrosnu ÁLrqr djsxkA ¼9½ tkap vf/kdkjh ls Áfrosnu ÁkIr gksus ij vkjksi Áekf.kr gks tkus ds vk/kkj ij l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk xaHkhj nqjkpj.k gsrq Áko/kkfur n.M ÁLrkfor djrs gq, vafre dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= O;fDrxr lquokbZ dh frfFk fu/kkZfjr djrs gq, tkjh fd;k tkosxkA ¼10½ vkjksfir deZpkjh }kjk vafre dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= ds Áfr mRRkj esa fyf[kr vFkok ekSf[kd :i ls ÁLrqr rF;ksa dks fyfic) dj ,oa tkap Áfrosnu esa mfYyf[kr rF;ksa dk laijh{k.k dj vkjksi Áekf.kr ik;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij l{ke vf/kdkjh xaHkhj nqjkpj.k gsrq Áko/kkfur n.M esa ls n.M dk fu/kkZj.k djsxk ,oa rn~uqlkj n.Mkns'k tkjh djsxkA 29- fdlh deZpkjh dks ml ij vkjksfir lk/kkj.k nqjkpj.k ds fy;s rc rd nf.Mr ugha fd;k tk ldsxk tc rd fd fuEu ÁfØ;k viukrs gq, deZpkjh nks"kh ugha ik;k tkrkA ¼1½ l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk lk/kkj.k nqjkpj.k ds rgr fd;s x;s d`R;ksa ls lacaf/kr vkjksiksa dk Li"V mYys[k djrs gq, vkjksfir deZpkjh dk vkjksi i= tkjh fd;k x;k gksA ¼2½ vkjksfir deZpkjh dks lkr fnol dk le; mRrj ÁLrqr djus gsrq Ánku fd;k tkosxkA ¼3½ vkjksih deZpkjh ls ÁkIr mRrj dk l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk ijh{k.k fd;k tkosxk ,oa rRi'pkr nks"kh ik;s tkus ij lk/kkj.k nqjkpj.k gsrq Áko/kkfur n.M fn;k tkosxkA vkjksfir deZpkjh }kjk O;fDrxr lquokbZ pkgh tkus ij n.M fu/kkZj.k ds iwoZ mls lquokbZ dk volj Ánku fd;k tkosxkA 6. From bare perusal of the order impugned herein passed by the Tribunal it is evident that the Tribunal has not gone into the merits of the matter and only on the basis of certain procedural irregularities it found that the order dated 11.7.2011 passed by the Additional Registrar and the order dated 17.4.2013 passed by the Joint Registrar were bad in law. 7. In the light of the aforesaid since the very order passed by which the petitioner was dismissed from service was punitive/stigmatic in nature and was passed without following principle of natural justice the same was rightly set aside by the authorities below and the controversy was not properly appreciated by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 5.11.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby set aside. The respondent No.1-Society is directed to reinstate the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the Asstt. Registrar forthwith.