( 1. ) A Co-operative Bank under which the non-Petitioner No. 1 was serving as a Supervisor, has come to this Court, assailing an order passed in second appeal by the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, on 20-8-1981.

( 2. ) THE order is challenged on two counts and indeed very forcefully by Shri N. P. Mittal, but after hearing counsel for both sides, I have taken the view that there is no reasonable ground for interference by this Court with one part of the order. I am not at all impressed by the argument advanced by Shri Mittal that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding a minor penalty to the petitioner who was dismissed from service by the Bank.

( 3. ) WHEN the petitioner raised "dispute" about his dismissal before the Deputy registrar of Co-operative Societies in accordance with the provisions of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, he succeeded and the order passed by the Bank was set aside. However, the Bank was not satisfied with the decision rendered and appealed to the joint Registrar and succeeded in having its own order restored. Now it was the turn of the employee to move the Board, wherein, he succeeded albeit partially. The Board, while setting aside the order passed in appeal by the Joint Registrar, did not restore the order passed by the Deputy Registrar in toto. The Board, accepting Banks case that the employee, while showing cause in the disciplinary proceedings, admitted the crucial fact, for which he could not be totally exonerated of the misconduct attributed to him. The Board held that the employee was guilty of a minor misconduct and the punishment commensurate therewith could be stoppage of two increments and not dismissal from service. Accordingly, the Board, without remanding the case to the authorities below, subsituted the punishment as aforesaid. Shri Mittal strenuously argued that this course could not be adopted by the Board. But, I am unable to accept his submission in view of the decision in Bhagtram, AIR 1984 SC 454. That such a course can be adopted and was rightly adopted in the facts and circumstances of the case appears clear from the decision in Bhagtram (supra ).

( 4. ) HOWEVER, Shri Mittal further submitted that a finding had to be recorded nevertheless by the Board in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 43 of the relevant rules (Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Central Bank Employees, Terms of Employment and working Conditions Rules) that the petitioner was guilty of "minor misconduct". For this submission, Shri Mittal drew my attention to clauses (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) of rule 43 to submit that the admitted facts could bring the "acts and omissions" attributed to the petitioner within the mischief of the expression "gross misconduct" and, therefore, proper punishment was imposed by the Bank, which was rightly upheld by the first appellate authority. He has also drawn my attention to certain annexures and made a serious attempt to revet my attention on Annexure P/2, wherein the so-called admission, as alluded, finds place. However, on a perusal of the show-cause notice (Annexure P/1) as well as Annexure P/2,i entertain no doubt at all that the offensive "acts and omissions", attributed to the employee, lastly partook the character of a dishonest act in that it was not such an act which could be said to have been done deliberately with the intention of involving the Bank in loss. I have no boubt that to find an employee guilty of "gross misconduct", his intention in doing, or omitting to do, any act, must receive paramount consideration. This appears clear from clause (e) which speaks of wilful and also from clause (d), of sub-rule (1) of Rule 43, which speaks of "offence involving moral turpitude". Cause (b) of the sub-rule must be read ejusdem generis and the expressions "involving or likely to involve the Bank in loss" have to be construed as resulting from deliberate act of a wrong doer, done with a dishonest intention. The use of the word "gross" qualifying the term "negli