K. Harilal, J.

The appellant in this intra-Court appeal is the petitioner in WP (C) No. 25797 of 2011 and review petitioner in RP No. 816 of 2013 filed therein. He joined the service of the 1st respondent, a Service Co-operative Bank, as its Secretary. While working so, he was placed under suspension on 18/11/2002, pending disciplinary proceedings proposed against him alleging misconduct. Eventually, the 1st respondent/Bank dismissed him from service on 20/3/2003, on the basis of the domestic enquiry report. The appellant challenged the dismissal order before the Arbitration Court as ACR No. 27 of 2006, pursuant to the direction of this Court in WP (C) No. 9764 of 2009. The Arbitration Court set aside the domestic enquiry report and conducted a fresh enquiry on the charges. Out of 16 charges contained in two charge memos dated 04/01/2003 and 11/01/2013, Charges Nos. 1, 3, 4, 8 and a part of Charge No. 7 were found to have been proved. Consequently, the dismissal was modified to reduction to a lower rank with service benefits including back wages. The 1st respondent challenged the arbitration award before the Co-operative Tribunal as AP No. 21 of 2008 and the appellant challenged the same as AP No. 81 of 2010. After re-appreciating the evidence on record and the findings of the Arbitration Court thereon, the Tribunal confirmed the verdict of misconduct by a common judgment; but set aside the punishment imposed by the Arbitration Court and converted the same to compulsory retirement as on the date of dismissal with terminal benefits, subject to liabilities. The appellant challenged the said common judgment in WP (C) No. 25797 of 2011, invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. After considering the legality of the findings whereby the Tribunal affirmed the verdict of misconduct, and proportionality of the punishment, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the judgment under challenge in this appeal. The legality and correctness of the findings whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition are under challenge in this writ appeal, after an unsuccessful application for review. The learned counsel for the appellant, challenging the concurrent findings of the Arbitration Court and the Tribunal, argued that Charges Nos. 1, 3, 4, 8 and part of Charge No. 7 are found to have not been proved. According to him, the learned Single Judge also failed to consider the legality and correctness of the findings whereby the Tribunal confirmed the findings of the Arbitration Court. The learned counsel submitted that even if the facts constituting the charges are true and correct, the said alleged commissions and omissions do not constitute any kind of misconduct under the bye-laws of the Bank or the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, for short, 'the Act' and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, 'the Rules', for short. According to the learned counsel, the explanation given by the appellant as regards each charge is sufficient to absolve him from the allegation of misconduct. It is argued that even if the commissions and omissions are true, the same are justifiable under the bye-laws and rules which govern the functioning of the Bank and service conduct of the appellant. The learned counsel drew our attention to Charge No. 4 and argued that the formation of another society at the initiative of the appellant and his continuance as Secretary of that society cannot be reckoned as an act done in contravention to the bye-laws of the Society or Service Rules. Similarly, as regards Charge No. 8 and part of Charge No. 7, it is argued that the contract works were awarded to the contractors after obtaining signed blank papers with an intention to incorporate required clauses for the benefit of the Society, if any dispute arises in future. The Tribunal failed to consider the bona fides of the appellant in its correct perspective and erroneously depicted the same as a dereli