ORDER : 1. The petitioner being the Daivajna Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. represented by its President and Secretary, is seeking issuance of Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 05.05.2018 passed by respondent No.1-the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bengaluru, produced as per Annexure-T, the order dated 27.05.2020 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the KAT') in Appeal No.136/2018 produced as per Annexure-V and to direct respondent No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.29,60,954/- in respect of 5 gold loans as detailed in Annexure-F or in the alternative to remand the matter to respondent No.1 for adjudication of the charges on merits afresh. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioner is a Credit Co-operative Society registered under the Provisions of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act (for short, 'the KCS Act'). Respondent No.2 joined the service with the petitioner's society as temporary Secretary on 07.04.1992 and his services was regularized with effect from 01.09.1992. The petitioner's Society got its service Rules approved by respondent No.1 on 21.02.2012. Respondent No.2 being the employee of the Society is bound by such Service Rules. 3. It is contended that respondent No.2 was having an account with the petitioner's Society in between 2009 to 2013 and heavy remittance from the account of respondent No.2 was noticed. It shows that he is carrying on other activities even while working as Secretary in the petitioner's Society. He was also indulged in availing gold loans very frequently. On enquiry, it was found that he had availed a gold loan on 12.06.2013. The Board of Directors decided to revalue the gold jewelleries pledged for the purpose. Accordingly, such gold articles were re-valued on 19.06.2013 in the presence of respondent No.2 by the approved valuers. The office bearers of the petitioner's Society were also present and 5 gold loans pertaining to respondent No.2 and his subordinate staff were found to be by pledging spurious / low quality / substandard jewelleries containing only 60% of gold as estimated by the approved valuers. It was also found that the gold loan in the name of one Sri. Anantha Padmanabha, bearing No.728 was obtained, who is none other than the attender working under respondent Nos.2 and 3. The other subordinate staff working under respondent No.2 have also availed gold loans. 4. It was also found that the gold loan in the name of one Sri. Anantha Padmanabha, bearing No.728 was obtained, who is none other than the attender working under respondent Nos.2 and 3. The other subordinate staff working under respondent No.2 have also availed gold loans. 4. It is stated that the gold loans obtained by respondent No.2 and his subordinate staffs were over and above the limit prescribed under Clause 11.8.1 of Service Rules, which prescribes the limit of only Rs.50,000/- per employee. Therefore, the borrowers were directed to repay the loan amount and close the loan accounts. Three of the employees gave their reply that it was respondent No.2 as Secretary of the petitioner's Society had taken 3 gold loans in their respective names and their entire loan amount was received by respondent No.2. They also stated that the articles pledged for obtaining loan does not belong to them and in fact belongs to respondent No.2, who played undue influence over them. He being the official supervisor in the position of Secretary managed to get 3 gold loans in the names of his subordinate staffs making them scapegoats. 5. It is contended that respondent No.2 set up his wife Smt.Bharathi an employee with KSRTC who gave a representation dated 06.03.2014 suggesting that she had taken 2 gold loans of Rs.2,95,000/- and Rs.1,95,000/- respectively in the names of Smt.Nirmala, Clerk and Sri. Anantha Padmanabha, Attender. Similarly, respondent No.2 set up one Sri.Vishweshwaraiah claiming to be his friend who contended that he had taken the gold loan of Rs.75,000/- in the name of Sri. Kashi Vishwanatha- the Recovery Officer. On enquiry, it is revealed neither Smt.Bharathi, wife of respondent No.2 nor Sri. Vishweshwariah-the friend of respondent No.2 have came to the petitioner's Society at any point of time. But it was respondent No.2 who had taken the signatures of his employees on the loan applications to obtain the loan in their names. Therefore, the claim of Smt.Bharathi and Sri.Vishweshwaraiah seeking to return the gold jewelleries was rejected. The said Smt.Bharathi and Vishweshwaraiah have even approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bengaluru by filing complaint Nos.870/2014, 871/2014 and 872/2014 claiming the gold jewelleries pledged with the Society, wherein they conceded that it was at the instance of respondent No.2, they had taken 3 gold loans in the names of his subordinate staffs. The said Smt.Bharathi and Vishweshwaraiah have even approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bengaluru by filing complaint Nos.870/2014, 871/2014 and 872/2014 claiming the gold jewelleries pledged with the Society, wherein they conceded that it was at the instance of respondent No.2, they had taken 3 gold loans in the names of his subordinate staffs. The said complaints came to be dismissed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum on 21.07.2015 as the complainants were neither the borrowers nor the guarantors for the loans. 6. It is contended by the petitioner that respondent No.2 submitted a representation on 31.10.2015 produced as per Annexure E, stating that he himself pledged the gold jewelleries in the names of his 3 subordinate staff members for the purpose of taking gold loans. Respondent No.2 stated that he is ready to pay the loan amount and wanted to close the loan accounts. 7. It is contended that respondent No.2 by misusing his authority as Secretary of the petitioner's Society, availed various gold loans totaling to Rs.9,65,000/-, which is much above the maximum limit of Rs.50,000/- provided under Clause 11.8.1 of Service Rules. The said loan amount along with outstanding interest was Rs.29,60,954/- which was due by respondent No.2. 8. It is stated that respondent No.2 had not submitted the details of gold loans obtained by him, but only placed summary of loans before the Board. He has not revealed that he availed more than Rs.9,00,000/- to get sanctioned 2 gold loans in his own name and 3 loans in the names of his subordinate staffs. The Board Resolution was written by respondent No.2 himself being the Secretary and managed in sanctioning of loan. 9. It is contended that the Board after considering misconduct of respondent No.2, kept him under suspension as per order dated 17.06.2013 (Annexure-G). The Articles of Charge (Annexure-J) was approved by the Board as per its proceedings dated 10.08.2013 (Annexure-H). The Articles of Charge was served on respondent No.2. He has submitted his reply as per Annexure-K. In the reply, he has not disputed availing of such loans in his name as well as in the names of his subordinate staffs. Therefore, an Enquiry Officer was appointed who was the retired Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Audit. 10. The Enquiry Officer held an enquiry, framed as many as 16 charges. He has submitted his reply as per Annexure-K. In the reply, he has not disputed availing of such loans in his name as well as in the names of his subordinate staffs. Therefore, an Enquiry Officer was appointed who was the retired Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Audit. 10. The Enquiry Officer held an enquiry, framed as many as 16 charges. After recording the oral evidence and getting the documents marked, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 29.11.2013 holding that except charge Nos.9, 11 and 14, all other 13 charges were proved. 11. A notice as per Annexure-L1 was issued to respondent No.2 supplying the enquiry report and calling upon his reply. The second show-cause notice as per Annexure-L2 was issued asking his reply about the report and the punishment. Respondent No.2 has not submitted any reply except stating as per his letter dated 16.12.2013 (Annexure-M) that his statement submitted before the Enquiry Officer may be considered as his reply. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner - Society that respondent No.2 had never raised any objection about the manner in which the enquiry was held. He has not raised any issue that he has been prejudiced in any manner or that there is violation of any of the law or the Rules. Therefore, the petitioner - Society as per Resolution dated 17.12.2013 (Annexure-N) passed by the Board dismissed respondent No.2 from service. 12. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 raised a dispute under Section 70 of KCS Act as per Annexure - P. Respondent No.1 has passed an order as per Annexure-T on 05.05.2018 allowing the dispute and setting aside the dismissal order of respondent No.2 as the same is untenable on technical grounds. There is not even a direction to respondent No.2 to repay the loan amount of Rs.9,65,000/- along with interest. 13. Being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1, the petitioner - Society approached the KAT, Bengaluru. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide Annexure-V which confirmed the order passed by respondent No.1 directing reinstatement of respondent No.2 with back wages and all monetary benefits. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 14. Heard Sri. Venugopal M.S., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. S.B.Mukkannappa, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 15. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 14. Heard Sri. Venugopal M.S., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. S.B.Mukkannappa, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a Credit Co-operative Society. Respondent No.2 was the Secretary and CEO of the petitioner's Society. This fact is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2 had availed 2 gold loans in his own name which was beyond the maximum limit provided under the service Rules. The materials on record disclose that respondent No.2 managed to get gold loans in the names of his subordinate staffs by pledging his own jewelleries. The gold jewelleries pledged by respondent No.2 in his own name and in the names of his subordinate staffs were spurious / low quality / substandard. Therefore, approved valuers have valued these jewelleries in the presence of respondent No.2 and the Board members. Respondent No.2 had not raised any dispute with regard to the valuation of the jewelleries. 16. Learned counsel contended that even when the Articles of Charge was served on respondent No.2, he has not raised any serious dispute except denying that he had not caused any loss to the Society. Even when the departmental enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer, he has not alleged any miscarriage of justice. He has not alleged that there is violation of any principles of natural justice. On the other hand, he participated in the enquiry throughout by cross-examining the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer after holding detailed enquiry, submitted a report holding that charges at Sl.Nos.1 to 8, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16 are proved, while charge Nos.9, 11 and 14 are not proved. 17. It is contended that, Annexures-L1 and L2 are the 2 show-cause notices issued to respondent No.2. Annexure-M is the reply by respondent No.2. There is nothing in Annexure-M except saying that the stand taken by him in his reply submitted when the enquiry had begun may be treated as his reply. He has nothing to say about the enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer and the findings recorded against him on various charges. Under such circumstances, the final order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority as per Annexure-N and respondent No.2 was dismissed from service. 18. He has nothing to say about the enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer and the findings recorded against him on various charges. Under such circumstances, the final order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority as per Annexure-N and respondent No.2 was dismissed from service. 18. It is stated that, even though respondent No.2 had raised a dispute before respondent No.1 under Section 70 of KCS Act, he never raised any ground that he was not provided with reasonable opportunity and the second show-cause notice served on him was bad in any manner. No prejudice is alleged by respondent No.2. In-spite of that, respondent No.1 and KAT proceeded to allow the dispute on flimsy grounds, making a new grounds for respondent No.2, which he never raised. 19. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no preliminary point was framed by respondent No.1 with regard to the fairness or otherwise of the enquiry to record a finding in that regard and to afford an opportunity to the petitioner, to prove conducting of the enquiry in accordance with law, but proceeded to dispose of the dispute on merits denying an opportunity to the petitioner to prove its contention. The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is against the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma , 2018 (4) SCC 483 , which was also followed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Hassan Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd . vs. The ARCS and Sri Subbaiah, W.P. No. 25516/2010, dated 21.12.2011. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by respondent No.1 is liable to be quashed. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the KAT has gone out of the way to record few findings without any basis. It has gone to the extent of recording that approved valuers were not examined by the Enquiry Officer which is blatantly false. Therefore, the findings recorded by respondent No.1 and the KAT is against the materials placed on record and also against the settled principles of law. Hence, the same are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the writ petition in the interest of justice. 21. Therefore, the findings recorded by respondent No.1 and the KAT is against the materials placed on record and also against the settled principles of law. Hence, the same are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the writ petition in the interest of justice. 21. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if this Court finds that the enquiry held is not in accordance with law or that the second show-cause notice issued by the petitioner was not in accordance with law, the matter may be remanded back for fresh enquiry in accordance with law and prays for passing appropriate orders. 22. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposing the petition submitted that necessary grounds were raised by respondent No.2 in the dispute regarding defect in the enquiry and non-issuance of show-cause notice as required under Article 6 — 1 — 1 to 6 of the Subsidiary Rules before passing the final orders by imposing major punishment. 23. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further contended that even though as many as 14 witnesses were cited in the list of witnesses, only 8 witnesses were examined and 2 such witnesses were not cited in the list, which has resulted in grave injustice. Learned counsel contended that some of the witnesses were examined in the absence of the respondent and they were not permitted to be cross-examined. 24. Learned counsel referring to the order passed by the Registrar in the dispute and by KAT contended that the Trial Court records are called for to verify the validity of such observations made by the Registrar in the dispute and also by KAT. There is justification for setting aside the enquiry report. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition. 25. Respondent No.2 is admittedly working as Secretary and CEO of the petitioner - Society. He was responsible for the administration of the Society and was very well aware of the Rules and Regulations and the byelaws governing the Society. The materials on record disclose that he joined petitioner's - Society as temporary Secretary on 07.04.1992 and his service was regularised on 01.09.1992 and he served the Society till he was suspended on serious charge of misconduct. 26. The materials on record disclose that he joined petitioner's - Society as temporary Secretary on 07.04.1992 and his service was regularised on 01.09.1992 and he served the Society till he was suspended on serious charge of misconduct. 26. The allegations made against respondent No.2 is that he was having an account with petitioner's - Society during 2009 to 2013 and heavy remittances were noticed from the said account, which was very unusual. Thereafter, it is also noticed by petitioner's - Society that respondent No.2 being the Secretary, who was at the helm of affairs to advice and guide the Board managed to avail various gold loans. A few gold loans were availed in his own name and some of them in the name of his subordinates, including the attender. When the petitioner's Society noticed that several gold loans were obtained in the name of respondent No.2 and his subordinates, a notice was issued calling upon them to close the loan account, since such borrowals was against Clause 11.8.1 of the service Rules prescribing maximum limit of only Rs.50,000/- that could be borrowed by an employee of the Society which is applicable to respondent No.2 as well. Such notices were issued to all the borrowers, who were suspected to be only the name lenders for respondent No.2 for availing the loan. 27. Three of the employees working under respondent No.2, who were the borrowers from petitioner's Society gave their reply categorically stating that they are only name lenders for respondent No.2 to avail the loan and that they never borrowed any loan for their personal use, nor they have pledged any gold ornaments. All the three employees have categorically stated that the articles pledged for obtaining loans in their names were in fact belonging to respondent No.2. Therefore, prima-facie, it was found that respondent No.2 being the Secretary and CEO, who was officially superior and managing the affairs of Society, managed to get two gold loans in his name exceeding the prescribed limits under Service Rules and managed to get three other gold loans in the names of his subordinate staffs by pledging the articles belonging to him. 28. As per Clause 11.8.1 of Service Rules, the limit of loan that can be obtained by respondent No.2 is only Rs.50,000/-. However, respondent No.2 obtained loan of Rs.4,70,000/-. 28. As per Clause 11.8.1 of Service Rules, the limit of loan that can be obtained by respondent No.2 is only Rs.50,000/-. However, respondent No.2 obtained loan of Rs.4,70,000/-. Borrowing of loan exceeding the limit and pledging of jewelleries was never disputed, rather it is admitted. Re-valuation of the jewelleries by the approved valuers examined before the Investigating Officer was never disputed by respondent No.2. 29. In the final order, there is reference to unanimous Resolution passed by the Board to take a decision to dismiss respondent No.2. The Board has authorized the President of the Society to pass such order as punishment. Accordingly, the President passed the order dismissing respondent No.2 from service. 30. The materials on record also disclose that the wife of respondent No.2 by name Smt. Bharati, who was an employee in KSRTC appears to have given representation contending that it was she, who took two gold loans of Rs.2,95,000/- and Rs.1,95,000/- respectively in the names of one Smt. Nirmala and Anantha Padmanabha, the clerk and attender working under respondent No.2. One Vishweshwaraiah also gave a representation in the name of Recovery Officer. When an enquiry was held in that regard, it was revealed that Vishweshwaraiah is none other than the friend of respondent No.2 and Smt. Bharati being the wife of respondent No.2 made efforts to save the skin of respondent No.2 for obvious reasons. It is also found neither Smt. Bharathi nor Vishweshwaraiah have came to petitioner's - Society for availing loan at any point of time either for submission of application or for obtaining loan. The claim made by the said Smt.Bharathi and Vishweshwaraiah for returning gold jewelleries in their favour was thus rejected by the petitioner's - Society. 31. The materials on record also discloses that Smt. Bharathi and Vishweshwaraiah not being satisfied with the rejection of their claim for return of jewelleries, approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru by filing the complaint claiming that gold jewellery pledged with Society. In the said complaint, they conceded that it was at the instance of respondent No.2, they had taken three gold loans in the names of his subordinate staff. Noting the same, the complaints came to be dismissed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bengaluru on 21.07.2015 by recording the findings that the complainants were neither the borrowers nor guarantors of loan and therefore, not entitled to claim back the jewelleries. 32. Noting the same, the complaints came to be dismissed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bengaluru on 21.07.2015 by recording the findings that the complainants were neither the borrowers nor guarantors of loan and therefore, not entitled to claim back the jewelleries. 32. It is the specific contention of the petitioners - Society that respondent No.2 had submitted a representation dated 31.10.2015 admitting in clear terms that it was, he who pledged gold jewelleries in the names of his three subordinate staff members for the purpose of availing gold loans. Further, respondent No.2 has undertaken to repay the loan amount and to close the loan account. The said representation is produced as per Annexure -E. 33. The contents of Annexure - 'E' do not give rise to any shred of doubt regarding misconduct committed by respondent No.2. The lame excuses given by respondent No.2 cannot be accepted as a ground for committing such grave misconduct of availing the gold loans exceeding the maximum limit permitted under the Rules, that too in the names of his subordinates. 34. It is the contention of the petitioner's - Society that even the gold pledged by respondent No.2 while availing as many as five gold loans were of spurious/low quality/sub standard articles. When such a reasonable doubt had arisen about the quality of the jewelleries pledged, the same were re- valued in the presence of respondent No.2 and the Board members through the approved valuers. The report given by such approved valuer discloses that the gold jewelleries pledged by respondent No.2 to avail two loans is his own name, and 3 other loans in the name of his subordinate staff were not of standard quality. It is stated that one of the article was not of gold. Serious doubt arises as to how such spurious articles could be taken as a pledge for providing gold loan in favour of respondent No.2 or his subordinate staffs. All these facts and circumstances lead to a reasonable conclusion that respondent No.2 who was at the helm of affairs as Secretary and CEO of the petitioner's -Society managed the entire show for his benefit. In doing so, definitely he must have misled the Board members. 35. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that the Board has approved sanctioning of the loan and therefore, availing of the loan cannot be viewed as a misconduct on his part. In doing so, definitely he must have misled the Board members. 35. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that the Board has approved sanctioning of the loan and therefore, availing of the loan cannot be viewed as a misconduct on his part. Since respondent No.2 was the Secretary and CEO and since the members of the Board were acting at the advice of the Secretary, getting sanction from the Board for various loans without disclosing the details or the misconduct committed by respondent No.2 in availing the loans in his name beyond the maximum limit provided under the Rules and other three loans in the names of his subordinates by pledging spurious articles as gold is not a difficult task for the purpose of getting approval from the Board. Therefore even getting the approval from the Board for sanction of such loan is also part of misconduct on the part of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 being the Secretary and CEO had played one man show in the entire episode of availing as many as five gold loans in various names by pledging low quality gold article. There is a clear case of misuse of power and authority by respondent No.2 by misleading the members of the Board as a whole. 36. It is pertinent to note that when a notice was issued initially by the petitioner's - Society, to respondent No.2 bringing it to his notice that he had availed loans in violation of the service Rules to which he is bound, and also alleging that he managed to avail three other gold loans in the name of his subordinates, the other borrowers who are the subordinates to respondent No.2, he gave the reply categorically admitting the role played by him in availing the loans in their names by pledging his own articles, which were subsequently proved to be spurious. Interestingly, respondent No.2 has never disputed this fact while issuing the reply in the form of representation. Therefore, availing of loan beyond the permitted limit in violation of Service Rules is demonstrated by the petitioner's - Society, availing of three more gold loans in the names of his subordinates by pledging spurious articles was also never disputed by respondent No.2, which will have very serious consequences. Therefore, availing of loan beyond the permitted limit in violation of Service Rules is demonstrated by the petitioner's - Society, availing of three more gold loans in the names of his subordinates by pledging spurious articles was also never disputed by respondent No.2, which will have very serious consequences. It is a very serious degree of misconduct committed by respondent No.2, taking advantage of his position as a Secretary and CEO of the Society and could manage to get the approval for various loans from the Board members. 37. Since these facts came to light, an enquiry was ordered against respondent No.2 and he was kept under suspension as per Annexure - G. The articles of charges as per Annexure - J was approved by the Board. As per Annexure - H, admittedly, the articles of charge was served on respondent No.2 calling upon for his reply. Annexure - K is the reply submitted by respondent No.2. By issuing Annexure - K, respondent No.2 in categorical terms admitted availing of loan as alleged by pledging his own articles, but pleaded that he was not aware of the standard of gold, which he pledged. He also asserts that as he used to arrange the loan, availed it again up to the limit of Rs.5,00,000/-, which is apparently in violation of the service Rules. His only justification for such misdeeds is that such borrowals were approved by the Board, which cannot be a justification at all in view of his position in the petitioner's - Society. The other justification given in Annexure - K is that he has not caused any loss to the Society. The said justification also cannot be accepted for any reason, as due to his misconduct, heavy loss is caused to the petitioner's - Society in conducting the enquiry, defending the dispute, prosecuting the appeal and filing and prosecuting the writ petition against him and also defending the complaints before the District Consumer Forums. Annexure - K, the reply issued by respondent No.2 with his own signature substantiate the allegations made against him by petitioner's - Society. Even then, petitioner's - Society proceeded with the enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer, who framed as many as 16 charges. The enquiry report is as per Annexure - L. 38. Annexure - K, the reply issued by respondent No.2 with his own signature substantiate the allegations made against him by petitioner's - Society. Even then, petitioner's - Society proceeded with the enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer, who framed as many as 16 charges. The enquiry report is as per Annexure - L. 38. As per Annexure - L - the enquiry report, many witnesses were examined and cross-examined at the instance of respondent No.2. Even the approved valuer is one of the witnesses, who spoke about revaluation of the articles pledged by respondent No.2 for availing various loans and stated that two gold bracelets pledged towards loan account No.596 and 597 were having only 85% of the gold contents. However, he stated that, after pledging the gold articles, the articles must have been replaced. 39. The approver has also referred to the gold loan No.469, where 4 bracelets were pledged to take loan of Rs.3,50,000/- and he approved the ornaments by referring to its weight, value etc. As stated by respondent No.2, he was the Secretary of the Society. When such is the evidence of the approved valuer that is available on record, I do not find any reason to reject the enquiry report, according to which, the petitioner's - Society is successful in proving all the 13 charges, except charge Nos.9, 11 and 14. I do not have any shred of doubt about proof of misconduct committed by respondent No.2 that was found by the Enquiry Officer. 40. Admittedly, the first notice as per Annexure 'L1' was issued enclosing the enquiry report, calling upon the response from respondent No.2. Annexure - L2 is the second show-cause notice asking for his reply on the enquiry report and to have his say in the matter of further action that is required to be taken on such report. Admittedly, Annexure - M dated 16.12.2013 is the reply given by respondent No.2, where he does not dispute the receipt of two show-cause notices as referred to above along with the enquiry report. He is not disputing conducting of the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. He never raises any question about the manner in which the enquiry was held. He never disputes that the principles of natural justice was followed in conducting such enquiry. He never disputes the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer regarding proof of various charges. He is not disputing conducting of the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. He never raises any question about the manner in which the enquiry was held. He never disputes that the principles of natural justice was followed in conducting such enquiry. He never disputes the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer regarding proof of various charges. His only reply is that the reply submitted to the articles of charge may be considered as his reply given to the enquiry report. 41. Framing of articles of charges, serving the same on respondent No.2 and calling upon him to have his response was at the initial stage and it would serve a different purpose. Since response from respondent No. 2 was not satisfactory, the Enquiry Officer came to be appointed and a detailed enquiry was held by examining several witnesses. A detailed report as per Annexure - L was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. But respondent No.2 even though served with copy of the said report calling upon his response by issuing two show-cause notices as required under law, respondent No.2 has nothing to say about the enquiry or the enquiry report holding that the misconduct alleged against him in various charges referred to above are proved. 42. Respondent No.2 had an opportunity not once, but twice to give the reply to Annexure L1 and L2 when he had not availed the same by taking any specific stand, he cannot be permitted to raise any such grounds at the belated stage. When respondent No.2 has nothing to say either about the enquiry or about the enquiry report, naturally, the petitioner's - Society proceeded to pass the order dismissing respondent No.2 from service. Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations which is proved against him, the order of dismissal imposed is proportionate and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 43. It is for the first time respondent No.2 raised several grounds to challenge the order of dismissal while raising the dispute under Section 70(2)(d) of KCS Act before respondent No.1 - Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies as per Annexure - P. As many as 18 grounds are urged in the memorandum of dispute for the first time on 23.01.2014, which were never raised before, in spite of giving repeated opportunity. There is absolutely no reason as to why respondent No.2, who was working as Secretary and CEO could not raise any of those objections at the initial stage, when a notice was issued to him calling upon repayment of the loan amount or when articles of charge was served on him or atleast when the enquiry was held and an opportunity was given to him to have his defence and even when two show-cause notices as per Annexures - L1 and L2 were served on him, furnishing the enquiry report. This conduct of respondent No.2 speaks in volumes about his intention only to drag on the matter indefinitely. I do not find any substance in any of the grounds urged by him in light of the discussions held above. 44. Annexure - T is the order passed by respondent No.1 and the dispute raised under Section 70 of KCS Act. Even though respondent No.2 had not raised his little finger about the manner in which the enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer, he never alleged denial of principles of natural justice in conducting such inquiry. Even after service of show cause notices as per Annexures - L1 and L2, respondent No.1 proceeded to consider the objections raised in the memorandum of dispute for the first time, without framing a preliminary point for consideration regarding the validity of the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer. It was never an issue till filing of the dispute. Even though respondent No.2 has repeatedly responded to various notices issued by the petitioner's - Society, I do not find any justifiable cause for respondent No.2 for not having raised any such dispute at the initial stage. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 is not a village restrict or Class - IV employee in the petitioner's - Society. But he was the employee of highest rank being the Secretary and the CEO, and who was suppose to know the byelaws and service Rules. He was at the helm of affairs having authority to guide and advice the members of the Board. Under such circumstances, I do not find any justification for respondent No.1 in going into the manner in which, the enquiry was held and to record a finding against petitioner's - Society. 45. The reasons assigned by respondent No.1 for allowing the dispute are also very strange and unsustainable. Under such circumstances, I do not find any justification for respondent No.1 in going into the manner in which, the enquiry was held and to record a finding against petitioner's - Society. 45. The reasons assigned by respondent No.1 for allowing the dispute are also very strange and unsustainable. The observations made in the impugned order Annexure - T that the approved valuer was never examined by the Enquiry Officer is patently wrong. Even if respondent No.1 was of the opinion that the enquiry held against respondent No.2 was either illegal or without following any of the procedure, it could have set-aside the enquiry report and could have directed the petitioner's - Society to hold the enquiry afresh. Even such an order was not passed for the reasons best known to respondent No.1. On the other hand, the order of dismissal was set-aside and it is ordered for reinstatement of respondent No.2 with all benefits. This order is not sustainable on any count. 46. When petitioner's - Society preferred an appeal before KAT, highlighting all these facts and circumstances for challenging the order passed by respondent No.1 as per Annexure T, even though it noticed that there is an admission on the part of respondent No.2 regarding availing of gold loans, contravening the service Rules and there is an admission on the part of respondent No.2 about the allegations made against him by pledging spurious articles and even one of the chain made up of copper under the guise of pledging the gold ornaments, proceeded to form the opinion regarding the conduct of the Society to hold that the conduct of the advocate would amount to contempt of Court and he is answerable. To form such an opinion, the KAT extracted a portion of the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bengaluru. Unfortunately, it has lost sight of the contentions taken by the petitioner's - Society. The materials that are placed before the Enquiry Officer, appreciation of such materials by the Enquiry Officer, where it is highlighted that even though the gold loans were obtained in the names of other persons, they are only name lenders. But it was for the benefit of respondent No.2. The materials that are placed before the Enquiry Officer, appreciation of such materials by the Enquiry Officer, where it is highlighted that even though the gold loans were obtained in the names of other persons, they are only name lenders. But it was for the benefit of respondent No.2. It is also highlighted that respondent No.2 projected his wife Smt. Bharathi and his friend one Vishweshwaraiah to file two complaints before the District Consumer Forum seeking to withdraw the ornaments, which were pledged while availing the loan. The said complaints came to be rejected by assigning reasons. Admittedly, the said judgment was never challenged by any of the parties. Under such circumstances, I do not find any justification for the First Appellate Court to make such observations in paragraph 16 of its order. 47. The opinion expressed by the First Appellate Court that the Society has framed five charges at Sl.Nos.1 to 5, and the same are falsified and therefore, respondent No.2 cannot be held responsible, is also without any basis. The observation of the First Appellate Court that no reasonable opportunity was given to respondent No.2 by the Enquiry Officer by furnishing copies of the proceedings of the day to day enquiry, is factually incorrect. At the cost of repetition it is to be stated that respondent No.2 had never raised such objection at any point of time before raising the dispute before respondent No.1. If at all respondent No.2 has not offered reasonable opportunity to defend and he had not furnished with copies of any of the documents or proceedings, then respondent No.2 could have raised the objection and sought for redressal of the same. Even when Annexures - L1 and L2 notices were issued to him, he has not made any such allegations. Therefore, it is clear that the grounds urged in the dispute, which was highlighted before the First Appellate Court are sheer afterthought to regal out of the situation and to get reinstated in respondent No.1 - Society. The entire order of the First Appellate Court was to find fault with the Enquiry Officer in holding the enquiry which is not justifiable. 48. The entire order of the First Appellate Court was to find fault with the Enquiry Officer in holding the enquiry which is not justifiable. 48. Even though respondent No.2 had no grievance when he participated in such proceedings and served with two notices, respondent No.1 and the First Appellate Court ignored the fact that respondent No.2 literally admitted availing of loan beyond the maximum limit prescribed under the byelaws in the names of various staff members, who are his subordinates, by pledging the ornaments, which are of low quality or spurious. However, they have not passed any order to repay the said amount. When such is the evidence on record, I do not find any justification for respondent No.2 to defend himself to contend that he has not caused any loss to the petitioner's - Society. It is to be borne in mind that the procedures are handmade and minor deviations even if it is there in holding enquiry will not go to the root of the matter when respondent No.2 willingly participated in the proceedings without raising any objection even after receipt of the enquiry report. No such irregularities were pointed out before this Court that could vitiate the enquiry or the report. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Annexures - T and V passed by respondent No.1 and the First Appellate Court - Authority respectively are liable to be set aside. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following; ORDER: (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The Order dated 05.05.2018 passed by respondent No.1 produced as per Annexure-T and Order dated 27.05.2020 passed in Appeal No.136/2018 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru produced as per Annexure - V are set aside. (iii) Order dated 17.12.2013 passed by petitioner's-Society dismissing respondent No.2 from service is upheld. (iv) It is made clear that respondent No.2 is liable to pay the loan amount with upto-date interest, which is due to be paid to petitioner's Society.