The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Registrar and tribunal to adjudicate the dispute raised by the respondent 1 against the bank.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner herein is Jammu Central Co-operative Bank Limited (for short “the bank”) registered as a society under J&K Co-operative Societies Act, 1989 (for short “the Act of 1989”) being a body corporate having a perpetual succession and common seal with the power to hold property to enter into contracts, institute suits and other legal proceedings and to do all things necessary for the purpose for which it is constituted.

2. The respondent 1 herein being an employee of the bank and while serving as Branch Head of Branch Office Latti in the year 1995, was alleged to have committed grave financial irregularities along with a co-employee of the bank being Cashier-cum-Clerk, namely, Sh. Behari Lal, having committed embezzlement to the tune of Rs. 1,03,700/- from various Saving/Recurring Accounts operated in the bank, resulting into placing of the respondent 1 and the said co-employee - Behari Lal under suspension, and consequently, the initiation of a disciplinary inquiry against them entrusted to one of the officers of the bank wherein the said inquiry, the respondent 1 as also the said Behari Lal came to be charge-sheeted and after the said inquiry into the charges resulted into termination of the services of the respondent 1 and the said Behari Lal after issuance of a final show cause notice by the bank against the respondent 1 and the said Behari Lal.

3. The respondent 1 feeling aggrieved of the order of termination issued by the bank vide no. Admn/PF/BS/22019-24 dated 28.08.1999, called in question the same before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies J&K by way of an appeal which appeal, however, came to be dismissed by the Registrar on 07.01.2002 aggrieved whereof the respondent 1 filed a revision petition before the J&K Special Tribunal (for short “the tribunal”) being respondent 2 herein which revision petition came to be allowed and while setting-aside the order of the Registrar as also the order of termination of the respondent 1 herein, the tribunal remanded the matter back to the bank for passing fresh orders.

4. The bank being aggrieved of the order of the tribunal dated 26.03.2003 has preferred the instant petition and calls in question the same on the following grounds:-

a. That a perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Member, J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu will show that the revision petition has been allowed on the specific grounds that sufficient opportunity of being heard has not been afforded to the respondent No. l during the inquiry. It has been held by the learned Member J&K Special Tribunal that the respondent No. l was not provided with relevant documents regarding the allegations against him despite the fact that the respondent No.1 had asked for the said documents in writing. As a matter of fact the learned Member, J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu had further taken into consideration the fact that the embezzled amount had been deposited in the Bank by the Cashier-cum-Clerk of the Bank whose services also stand terminated. The learned Member, J&K Special Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion which is different from the inquiry report by holding that the respondent No.1 had not embezzled any amount. It is interesting to note that even the embezzlement had been referred to a-period when the respondent No.1 was allegedly on medical leave and on this ground the orders impugned have been set aside. The aforesaid findings of the learned Member, J&K Special Tribunal are totally perverse and without any basis inasmuch as after the communication for documents was received, the report of the Inquiry-Officer was supplied to the respondent No.1 herein. Despite the receipt of the inquiry report, respondent did not submit his reply to the final show cause notice. As a matter of fact the Staff Sub Committee is a recommendatory body whose recommendations are not binding either upon the Managing Director or upon the Chairman as the case may be. Respondent No.1 had no right to ask for the recommendations of the