The central legal point established is that the employer had the competence and jurisdiction to dismiss the employee, and the CCA lacked the power to interfere with the final dismissal order.

( 1 ) AT Raibag Town, the Taluk Headquarter of the same Taluk, Belgaum district, there is a Co-operative Society, now called as 'agricultural and Rural development Bank of Raibag' ('ard bank'), formerly called as The Primary land Development Bank Ltd. , Raibagh", constituted and functioning under the karnataka CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 of 1959 (Karnataka Act No. 11 of 1859 ('the Act') which is the petitioner before us. Prior to 3-9-1976, respondent- 1 was working as its Secretary.

( 2 ) ON 3-9-1976, the petitioner placed respondent-1 under suspension and commenced discriplinary proceedings against him for alleged misappropriation of its funds End various other misdemeanours. After holding an inquiry into the charges levelled against respondent-1 the General Body of ARD bank by its order made on 29-1-1977 (Annexure-B) dismissed him from service and sought for the approval of the Joint registrar of Co-operative Societies, beigaum Division, Belgaum ('registrar') under Rule 18 (b) of the Rules. On an examination of the said proposal, the registrar by his order made on 20-7- 1979 (Annexure-A) accorded his approval to the same, which was formally communicated by thepetitioner on 16-8-1979 to respondent-1. On 10-8-1979, respondent-1 challenged the said order of the Registrar be'ore this Court in W. P. . No. 12031 of 1979. On 14-8-1979, this Court directed issue of notices in the said writ petition to show-cause as to why Rule Nisi should not be issued.

( 3 ) EVEN before the Registrar examined the proposal of the petitioner and accorded his approval, respondent-1 commenced proceedings before the labour Court at Hubli ('labour Court') for grant of monetary reliefs under section 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1957 ('i. D. Act' ). On 28-10-1978 and 18-2-1981 respectively, the Labour Court made two orders in favour of respondent-1, the validity of which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W. P. . No. 651 of 1979 and W. P. . No. 8843 of 1980. On 2-11-1981 and 4-8-1981, this Court has disposed of them substantially in favour of respondent-1.

( 4 ) ON and from 24-8-1978, the common Cadre Authority ('cca') for ard Banks constituted by Government came into being in the State.

( 5 ) IN its order No. CCA/jgs/22851. / 873/79-80 dated 17-11-1979 (Annexure-C), the cca made a curious and astonishing order withholding the order made by the Registrar on 20-7-1979 and posting respondent-1 as the Secretary of the ARD Bank, Laxmeshwar, Dharwad district.

( 6 ) WHEN W. P. . No. 12031 of 1979 filed by respondent-1 came up for hearing before Rama Jois, J. , on 4-12- 1979, he wisely and quietly sought to withdraw the same which was opposed by the petitioner. But, Rama Jois, J. , over-ruling the objection of the petitioner, dismissed the same as withdrawn by respondent-1.

( 7 ) IN view of the above order and the orders made by this Court in W. P. . No. 651 of 1979 and W P. No. 8843 of 1980, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the constitution challenging the order made by the CCA on 17-11-1979.

( 8 ) THE petitioner has urged that the order made by the CCA on 17-11-1979 setting at naught the order of dismissal which had become final approved by the Registrar, was without jurisdiction and illegal.

( 9 ) THE respondents without filing their returns have resisted the wait petition.

( 10 ) SRI H. Thipperudrappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that as on the dates respondent-l was placed under suspension and dismissed from service, the petitioner was competent to do so and the CCA had no competence to undo the same.

( 11 ) SRI S. B. Adi, learned counsel for respondent-1, in supporting the order of the CCA, contends that its legality upheld by this Court in the earlier proceedings cannot be examined by this Court. As the latter contention urged by Sri Adi goes to the root of the matter, it is necessary to examine the same first. Sri S. S. Ujjannavar, lea ned counsel appearing