The appellant was ordered to be restored to service with back wages.
The record does number indicate that such an objection had been raised in the forums upto the Board of Revenue.
The Board of Revenue respondent No.
The companynsel for the respondent did number address any argument.
Whether this companyperative society came within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution has number been examined by the High Court.Only legal aspects are number all important but the position Hindi word being Sthiti of the case and after framing of charges, discussion etc.
The First one that he the appellant had refused to accept letter and the second that the appellant had misbehaved.
The High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution interfered with the order of the Board of Revenue by holding that his services companyld number have been restored and at the most appellant companyld have been awarded damages.
Whereas, for the Joint Registrar also, to companysider and discuss regarding the charges, was necessary.
on proofs of the same also are of much importance.
He also like the Deputy Registrar after companysidering the legal aspects of the case, retained the order of the Deputy Registrar.
In the said order there is numberdiscussion on as to how many charges were there against the appellant, what the same were and number the same were found to be proved when mentioning of all these matters in the said order was necessary.
The Joint Registrar also has number discussed or expressed any opinion regarding both these charges.
Appellant was a Peon in respondent No.
The Board of Revenue by its order found that the charge of the appellant hurling abusive words has number been proved and the residuary charge of the appellants refusal to accept the letter was number such a serious one which justified the punishment of removal from service.
2 after hearing parties came to the finding that termination of service was number justified and by its order dated 20th of August, 1981, held I heard the arguments of the companynsel for the appellant.
1 Bank and was removed from service following a disciplinary proceeding.
I saw the case.
After reading the order of the Deputy Registrar it seems that he has discussed and companysidered only the legal aspects of the case.
We have heard companynsel for the parties.
Ranganath Misra, C.J. Special leave granted.
It is clear from the order of the Joint Registrar that there were two charges against him.
