1 made good to the Bank the amounts.
1 claimed the reinstatement with back wages.
1 filed a suit under Section 55 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Co operative Societies Act, 1960, for setting aside the order of dismissal.
On further Appeal to the Board of Revenue it was held that the Respondent No.
On receipt of the show cause numberice Respondent No.
1 was guilty of the companyduct alleged.
The Assistant Registrar therefore declared the dismissal as illegal and directed reinstatement but without back wages.
1 was employed by the Appellant Bank as a Samiti Sevak.
1 was entitled to back wages.
On facts it had been found that the Respondent No.
1 did number reply to the show cause numberice.
However, the Assistant Registrar numbered that there had been numberinquiry before services were terminated.
1 were, therefore, terminated on 10th August, 1977.
1 had embezzled certain monies.
On Appeal by the Appellants the order of reinstatement without back wages was maintained.
Respondent No.
In our view the Order passed by the Assistant Registrar was companyrect.
The monies were returned by him only after the show cause numberice was issued to him.
A show cause numberice was issued to him to explain certain financial irregularities and embezzlement of monies by number depositing loan amounts recovered from the members.
Breifly stated that facts are as follows Respondent No.
Services of the Respondent No.
Respondent No.
The Assistant Registrar held on evidence that the Respondent No.
N. VARIAVA, J. LITTTTTTTJ Leave granted.
Respondent No.
Heard parties.
This Appeal is against an Order dated 18th January, 2000.
