K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.

1. The petitioner was an employee of the 4th respondent Society. She was dismissed from service by Ext.P2 order dated 22.08.2000 with retrospective effect from 28.01.1998, the date, on which, she was suspended from service. The allegation against her was falsification of accounts and misappropriation of bank's money. Immediately on detection of the irregularity, the petitioner remitted the entire amount. However, Ext.P3 charge sheet was served on her. An enquiry was held into the charges in which she was found guilty and based on that report, Ext.P2 dismissal order was passed. She moved the Joint Registrar, challenging Ext.P2 under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The said application was allowed by the Joint Registrar. The Government affirmed the said decision of the Joint Registrar in appeal. Those orders were challenged before this Court by filing OP Nos.14488 & 14528/03. The said Original Petitions were disposed of by Ext.P4 Judgment, setting aside the orders of the Joint Registrar and the Government and also directing the Joint Registrar to reconsider the matter. The said Judgment was taken in appeal and the Division Bench of this Court, by Ext.P5 Judgment, directed the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to reconsider the matter. The Registrar, after hearing both sides, passed Ext.P6 order dated 30.09.2004, directing her reinstatement. The society appealed. The appeal was allowed by Ext.P14 order of the Government dated 29.03.2005. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P14. According to the petitioner, since she has already remitted the loss, if any suffered by the bank, further action against her was unwarranted. The finding against her that she committed misappropriation etc., is unsustainable in law. After the closure of the argument in the appeal, from the side of the bank, an argument note was submitted. The Government placed reliance on it. Therefore, the order of the Government is vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. Having regard to the facts of the case, including the one that she has already retired from service, a lesser penalty would have met the ends of justice. The authorities below failed to consider the said aspect. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for quashing Ext.P14.

2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from urging the aforementioned contentions, submitted that after 02.01.2003, only the Co-operative Arbitration Court has jurisdiction to deal with the petition filed by her. All pending proceedings should have been transferred to the Co-operative Arbitration Court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 70B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. So, the orders of the Joint Registrar and the Government are without jurisdiction. Therefore, the matter may be remitted to be reconsidered by the Co-operative Arbitration Court, it is submitted. I heard the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 also. He supported the impugned order of the Government. The learned Government Pleader also was heard in the matter. That the petitioner has committed misappropriation and falsification of accounts, is a finding of fact, which cannot be disturbed by this Court. The Registrar held in favour of the petitioner, taking note of the fact that the entire amount due to the bank has been remitted. The Government rightly interfered with the said finding of the Registrar and upheld the resolution of the bank. The contentions raised by the petitioner are not sufficient to interfere with the said order. The submission of an argument note cannot be equated with the submission of document, containing adverse materials against one side. The arguments raised therein have been noticed by the Government in the impugned order. If they are unsustainable, the petitioner can point out the same before this Court. So, the contention that the principles of natural justice were violated by receiving