The Board of Revenue has the inherent power to entertain a time-barred dispute and direct reinstatement by fresh appointment if the termination order was based on surcharge proceedings which were subsequently set aside.

S.K. Dubey, J.

1. Both these petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, is aggrieved of the order dated 8-3-1984 (Annexure P/7 in M. P. No. 351 of 1984) and order dated 2-12-1993 (Annexure P/l in M. P. No. 86 of 1994) both passed by the Board of Revenue, has filed these two separate petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari and/or other suitable direction or order for quashing the aforesaid two orders.

3. Brief facts leading to the petitions are thus. Petitioner is a co-operative society, registered under M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, for short, the Act', which is a consumer society, wherein the respondent No. 1 was employed as a salesman and of which one Amrit Lal Mishra is the Manager. On inspection and audit of stocks, the respondent No. 1 was found guilty of shortage and defalcation, hence, the society passed a resolution No. 3 on 8-4-1972 to terminate the services of the respondent. In pursuance of the resolution, the President of the Society terminated the services of the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 11-4-1972 (Annexure P/l in M. P. No. 351 of 1984). The respondent No. 1 raised a dispute under Section 64 of the Act, against the order of surcharge, ultimately, the Joint Registrar in appeal No. 77/42/81 vide order dated 10-2-1982 set aside the order of surcharge and recovery holding that the respondent No. 1 was neither guilty of shortage nor of any defalcation. After this order, which became final, the respondent No. 1, raised a dispute under Section 55(2) of the Act, for declaration of his termination as illegal. That dispute was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar vide order dated 19-10-1982 as not raised within the period of 30 days from the dale of the order of termination. This order was confirmed by the Joint Registrar in appeal vide order dated 28-6-1983. The Board of Revenue, in second appeal, vide order dated 8-3-1984 (Annexure P/7 in M. P. No. 351 of 1984), allowed the appeal observing that though the dispute raised was beyond the period of limitation, but under inherent powers, directed reinstatement of the respondent by fresh appointment holding that the cause of termination is embezzlement in the surcharge proceedings, which, having been wiped out, there is no cause for not appointing the respondent. Hence, the petitioner, aggrieved of the order of the Board of Revenue, filed the M. P. No. 351 of 1984. As this Court did not grant any stay of the execution of the order of the Board of Revenue, the respondent was reinstated by giving a fresh appointment from 18-7-1984.

4. The respondent worked for a period of three years, thereafter was served with a charge-sheet dated 20-7-1987 wherein a charge of defalcation to the extent of Rs. 12,996.28 was levelled. Respondent No. 1 objected to issuance of charge-sheet contending that it is the Manager, who is responsible for defalcation, if any. Holding of the enquiry was also objected. An ex parte domestic enquiry was held wherein, the respondent having been found guilty of the charges, his services were terminated vide order dated 22-2-1988, Annexure P/l 2 in M. P. No. 86 of 1994. Respondent raised the dispute under Section 55(2) of the Act, which was contested by the petitioner Society by its written statement (Annexure P/l4) filed on 30-5-1988. Petitioner Society produced the record of enquiry; the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, vide order dated 26-12-1989 (Annexure P/l 6 of M. P. No. 28 of 1994) dismissed the dispute; that order was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Registrar vide order dated 6-10-1990. Respondent preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. After perusing the records of the enquiry, and after hearing parties, the Board of Revenue, set aside the order of termination holding that during enquiry, no evidence was produced by the Society to prove embezzlement. Only because the employee did not file t