Judgment : Sandeep Sharma, J. Petitioner herein, who at present is discharging his duties as Deputy General Manager (in short “DGM”) in Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved by the non-implementation of the decision of Board of Directors (in short “BOD”) dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-15), whereby it came to be resolved that ongoing disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, be immediately stopped and related charges be dropped. 2. Quint-essential facts, as emerge from the pleadings, adduced on record by the respective parties are that on 29.09.2022, meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (in short “DPC”) for promotion of the petitioner along with other eligible candidates to the post of DGM was held, however, name of the petitioner was kept in sealed cover on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. On 28.02.2023, disciplinary authority i.e. Managing Director, KCC Bank Dharamshala, imposed major penalty of reversion to lower grade/post, as a result thereof, petitioner herein came to be demoted to the post of Senior Manager. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order passed by disciplinary authority before BOD of the respondent/bank. Majority of the members of BOD were of the opinion that penalty imposed is not commensurate with the mis-conduct, but Managing Director gave his dissent, however, resolution dated 22.10.2024 came to be passed by BOD upholding order dated 17.04.2023. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 22.10.2024 upholding the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by BOD, petitioner herein preferred CWP No.15133 of 2024, titled as Sh. K.C. Bhardwaj Vs. State of H.P & others before this Court, which came to be allowed, vide judgment dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-3), with a direction to BOD to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by Disciplinary Authority afresh within a period of four weeks, by ensuring that the authority, which has passed the order under challenge does not participate in the process. 4. Pursuant to afore directions issued by this Court in aforesaid writ petition, BOD heard the appeal of the petitioner afresh and waived off the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority i.e. Managing Director of the respondent/bank (Annexure P-4). In pursuance to decision of BOD, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was completely waived off vide order dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure P-5). In pursuance to decision of BOD, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was completely waived off vide order dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure P-5). Consequent to passing of aforesaid decision taken by the BOD on 23.12.2024, respondent/bank opened the sealed cover of the DPC proceedings of the petitioner and respondent No.2 issued the promotion order dated 06.02.2025 of the petitioner, as DGM (Annexure P-6). It is pertinent to take note of the fact that prior to promotion of the petitioner to the post of DGM, vide order dated 06.02.2025, an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, vide order dated 13.08.2024, by respondent No.2 under Rule 56 (b) (iii) of Bank Service Rules read with Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, wherein one Mr. Amit Gupta, General Manager, was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Petitioner raised objections qua appointment of above named Inquiry Officer, vide representation dated 21.09.2024 (Annexure P-7). Pursuant to aforesaid representation of the petitioner, Mr. Navdeep Mahajan, DGM, was appointed as Inquiry Officer, vide order dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure P-8). 5. Petitioner again filed objections/representations vide letter dated 28.10.2024 (before opening of sealed cover) and again on 27.02.2025 (after opening of sealed cover and his promotion as DGM) against the appointment of a Junior Officer as Inquiry Officer, stating therein that appointment of an Inquiry Officer, who was junior to him is against rules and settled position of service jurisprudence/law on the matter. However, said representation was rejected by respondent No.2, vide order dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure P-9). 6. Before the issue with regard to appointment of the Inquiry Officer could be settled, vide letter dated 24.03.2025, Inquiry Officer intimated the petitioner to appear before him on 29.03.2025 (Annexure R-1/6), but petitioner failed to do so. Vide letter dated 29.03.2025, Inquiry Officer granted last opportunity to the petitioner to appear before him on 02.04.2025 (Annexure R-1/7), failing which he was to be proceeded against ex parte. However, fact remains that petitioner did not appear, as a result thereof, Inquiry Officer initiated ex parte proceedings against him, vide order dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-13). Petitioner thereafter filed a comprehensive representation dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-10) before the BOD and Chairman of the bank, praying therein to drop memo dated 20.07.2024 (Annexure P-1 colly). Pursuant to afore representation dated 07.04.2025, the Chairman of the Bank issued order dated 08.04.2025 directing respondent No.2 to postpone the proceedings on the charge sheet issued to the petitioner (Annexure P-11). Petitioner thereafter filed a comprehensive representation dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-10) before the BOD and Chairman of the bank, praying therein to drop memo dated 20.07.2024 (Annexure P-1 colly). Pursuant to afore representation dated 07.04.2025, the Chairman of the Bank issued order dated 08.04.2025 directing respondent No.2 to postpone the proceedings on the charge sheet issued to the petitioner (Annexure P-11). Petitioner again made a representation dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-12) to the Inquiry Officer, intimating him of the decision of the Chairman dated 08.04.2025 (Annexure P-11) to withhold the inquiry till the next BOD meeting. However, the Inquiry Officer without taking cognizance of the petitioner’s representation dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-12), referred the matter to respondent No. 2 for further directions. (Annexure P-14) 7. Subsequently, BOD of the bank, vide resolution No.55 dated 28.04.2025, under item No.2, decided and expressly resolved that ongoing disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, be immediately stopped and related charge sheet be dropped (Annexure P-15). Despite there being aforesaid decision taken by the BOD of the Bank, Inquiry Officer submitted an ex parte inquiry report dated 15.05.2025 against the petitioner to respondent No.2. 8. Petitioner again made a representation dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P-17) to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, requesting therein for stopping the inquiry and implementation of BOD decision dated 28.04.2025, whereby the charge sheet and inquiry proceedings against him were dropped. Besides above, petitioner also made representation dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure P-18) to respondent No.2, praying therein to drop the inquiry proceedings dated 20.07.2024. Since no action ever came to be taken on the afore representation till date, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the following main reliefs:- “a. That the impugned charge sheet (Annexure: P1(colly) of dated 20.07.2024, inquiry report dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-2), may kindly be quashed and set-aside in view of BOD decision dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-15). b. That the respondent No.2 may be directed to implement the decision of the BOD Bank (Annexure:P15) to drop the impugned charge sheet and inquiry thereof; c. The respondents may be directed to pay due and legitimate promotion benefits and other pay dues pending since 2022 with interest a@ 12% p.A. forthwith.” 9. b. That the respondent No.2 may be directed to implement the decision of the BOD Bank (Annexure:P15) to drop the impugned charge sheet and inquiry thereof; c. The respondents may be directed to pay due and legitimate promotion benefits and other pay dues pending since 2022 with interest a@ 12% p.A. forthwith.” 9. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No.1 & 2 have filed detailed reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, have not been disputed, rather an attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that resolution No.55 dated 28.04.2025, passed by BOD of the bank was never confirmed, rather in subsequent meeting of BOD held on 25.06.2025, BOD discussed and confirmed the proceedings of BOD held on 28.04.2025, except the agenda item discussed with the permission of the chair i.e. with regard to dropping of the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide memo dated 20.07.2024. 10. In nutshell, case of the respondents is that resolution dated 28.04.2025 was not confirmed as per bye-laws of the respondent/bank and therefore, the same has no legal sanctity attached to it for want for confirmation by the BOD in its next meeting. A copy of relevant extract of the bye-laws of the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank, Dharamshala as well as copy of resolution dated 25.06.2025 of the BOD are placed on record as Annexures R-1/1 and R-1/2, respectively. 11. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, duly assisted by Mr. Tejasvi Dogra and Mr. K.S. Dhaulta, Advocates, vehemently argued that continuation of disciplinary proceedings initiated vide order dated 13.08.2024 by respondent No.2 under Rule 56 (b) (iii) of Bank Service Rules read with Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, are wholly impermissible on account of decision taken by BOD in its meeting held on 28.04.2025, wherein it decided to drop the charge sheet as well as consequent proceedings. Mr. Dogra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, further argued that bare perusal of reply filed by the respondents nowhere suggests that BOD decision dated 28.04.2025 is in dispute, rather same has been duly acknowledged by the respondents. He submitted that ground put forth by the respondents to refute the rightful claim of the petitioner that the decision dated 28.04.2025 qua dropping of charge initiated against the petitioner was not confirmed in next meeting, is wholly misplaced. He submitted that ground put forth by the respondents to refute the rightful claim of the petitioner that the decision dated 28.04.2025 qua dropping of charge initiated against the petitioner was not confirmed in next meeting, is wholly misplaced. He submitted that confirmation of the resolution is for a very limited purpose and while confirming the resolution passed in previous meeting, BOD is not competent to review its decision, rather being aggrieved, if any, of decision taken in BOD, a party has remedy of filing appeal before Registrar Cooperative Societies. Mr. Dogra, submitted that confirmation of resolution passed in the previous meeting is a mere formality because while doing so, BOD is to ensure that decision taken in previous meeting has been recorded correctly or there is no attempt, if any, to tinker with the decision of BOD. Mr. Dogra, submitted that in no eventuality, BOD, in the name of confirmation, can review decision taken in previous meeting. 12. While making this Court peruse Rule 35 of Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies, Rules 1971 (in short “Rules, 1971”), Mr. Dogra, attempted to argue that otherwise also, minutes of meeting are required to be signed and confirmed by the Chairman as well as members, then and there, and there is no provision, which permits BOD to confirm its resolution passed in a previous meeting during the subsequent meeting of the Board. He submitted that very conduct of the Inquiry Officer as well as respondent No.2, as is evident from the pleadings and other documents adduced on record, clearly suggests their bias against the petitioner. He submitted that Inquiry Officer in a hasty and slipshod manner conducted the ex parte inquiry, despite decision of the BOD taken on 28.04.2025 to drop the charge sheet and inquiry proceedings (Annexure P-15), which act being mala fide and biased, deserves to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that otherwise also, inquiry, which is wholly impermissible, in terms of decision dated 28.04.2025 taken by the Board, is vitiated on account of the fact that same was conducted by the Officer Junior to the petitioner. He further contended that though in the case at hand, Chairman of the Bank specifically called upon Managing Director to stop the inquiry, but yet Inquiry Officer at the instance of respondent No.2 continued with the inquiry and passed illegal order. He further contended that though in the case at hand, Chairman of the Bank specifically called upon Managing Director to stop the inquiry, but yet Inquiry Officer at the instance of respondent No.2 continued with the inquiry and passed illegal order. He submitted that since no effective opportunity of hearing was ever given to the petitioner, rather ex parte inquiry was conducted that too by the officer, who is junior to the rank of the petitioner, who at the time of inquiry, was working as DGM, no action otherwise could have been taken against the petitioner on the basis of inquiry report. Lastly, Mr. Dogra, submitted that all actions of respondent No.2 after BOD decision dated 28.04.2025 were without authority and clearly a case of insubordination and are liable to quashed and set aside. He submitted that since petitioner was considered for promotion as DGM in consonance to DPC held on 29.02.2022, he is entitled to all promotional benefits including his due pay and arrears w.e.f date of promotion, especially when it is apparent that BOD, while dropping charges against the petitioner by allowing the appeal, was duly satisfied that no case is made out against the petitioner. He submitted that petitioner is to retire from service on 31.12.2025, but respondent No.2, with a view to ensure that all retiral benefits due to the petitioner are not paid to him, has purposely or in violation of decision taken by the BOD in its resolution dated 28.04.2025, is leaving no stone unturned to implement the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, who is admittedly junior to the petitioner. 13. To the contrary, Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents, duly assisted by Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, while justifying the impugned action of respondent/bank, vehemently argued that decision of BOD taken on 28.04.2025 with respect to dropping of charges against the petitioner was never confirmed in next meeting, rather BOD, in its next meeting held on 25.06.2025, confirmed the proceedings of BOD meeting held on 28.04.2025, except the agenda item discussed with the permission of the chair i.e. with regard to dropping of the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner, vide memo dated 20.07.2024. He submitted that reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner on Rule 35 is not applicable in the present case because same pertains to minutes of General Meeting, whereas in the case at hand, Bye-law 72 (2), which provides for minutes of meeting of BOD, is applicable. He submitted that in terms of aforesaid Bye-law, minutes of meeting of BOD shall be drawn up and signed by the President/Chairman at the close of agenda of the meeting and same shall be confirmed by the BOD in its next meeting. He submitted that since in the next meeting of BOD held on 25.06.2025, minutes of meeting held on 28.04.2025 were not confirmed, especially with regard to decision to drop the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner, vide memorandum order dated 20.07.2024, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents in continuing with the inquiry initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 13.08.2024 passed by respondent No.2 under Rule 56 (b) (iii) of Bank Service Rules read with Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He submitted that memo of charge sheet in question was issued on 20.07.2024 by the Managing Director, being the designated disciplinary authority of the petitioner, who at relevant time was working as AGM, Mr. Amit Gupta, General Manager, was appointed as Inquiry Officer on 13.08.2024, however, upon receiving petitioner’s objection dated 21.09.2024, respondent/Bank appointed Mr. Navdeep Mahajan, DGM, senior to the petitioner, who was then working as AGM, as Inquiry Officer vide order dated 25.09.2025. He submitted that petitioner was promoted as DGM vide order dated 06.02.2025 and since the petitioner’s conduct as AGM was under scrutiny by way of disciplinary proceedings initiated vide earlier memo dated 20.07.2024, representation of the petitioner dated 29.03.2025 was rejected by the Managing Director vide letter dated 04.04.2025. He submitted that subsequently taking note of opinion rendered by the Law Officer, matter was placed before BOD along with opinion of Law Officer in its meeting held on 09.07.2025, but BOD, in its meeting held on 09.07.2024, through resolution No.66, resolved that charge sheet cannot not be withdrawn at this stage. More so, in view of the fact that matter was sub judice before the Court in the present writ. 14. More so, in view of the fact that matter was sub judice before the Court in the present writ. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that primarily question, which needs to be determined in the case at hand is that “Whether a decision taken by the BOD, vide resolution passed in meeting of Board, can be given effect to without its being confirmed in the next meeting of BOD?” Since it is not in dispute that earlier disciplinary proceedings, which were initiated against the petitioner, while he was AGM and pursuant to which, promotion of the petitioner to the post of DGM was withheld, stand dropped, coupled with the fact that petitioner stands promoted to the post of DGM, this Court sees no reason to go into aforesaid aspect of the matter, rather it shall deal with the situation, which has emerged after the promotion of the petitioner to the post of DGM, consequent upon order dated 13.08.2024 passed by respondent No.2 under Rule 56 (b) (iii) of Bank Service Rules read with Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, thereby initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for his having indulged in the act of mis-conduct as have been detailed in the Article of Charges. (Annexure P-1). 15. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner herein was promoted to the post of DGM vide order dated 06.02.2025, but prior to his being promoted to afore post, an inquiry under Rule 56 (b) (iii) of Bank Service Rules read with Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, stood initiated against him vide order dated 13.08.2024 passed by respondent No.2. Petitioner raised an objection to the appointment of Mr. Amit Gupta, General Manager, as the Inquiry Officer on the ground that he is junior to him. Taking note of aforesaid objection, respondent/bank changed the Inquiry Officer and appointed Mr. Navdeep Mahajan, DGM, as Inquiry Officer vide order dated 25.09.2024. Petitioner again filed a representation/objection, stating therein that appointment of a Junior Officer as the IO is against the rules and settled position of service jurisprudence/law on the matter. However, the said representation was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 01.04.2025. Petitioner thereafter filed a comprehensive representation dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-10) before the BOD and Chairman of the Bank. Petitioner again filed a representation/objection, stating therein that appointment of a Junior Officer as the IO is against the rules and settled position of service jurisprudence/law on the matter. However, the said representation was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 01.04.2025. Petitioner thereafter filed a comprehensive representation dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-10) before the BOD and Chairman of the Bank. Taking cognizance of the averments contained in the representation, Chairman of the Bank directed respondent No.2 to postpone the proceedings on the charge sheet of the petitioner till the next meeting. However, fact remains that Inquiry Officer continued with the inquiry proceedings. Since despite repeated opportunities, petitioner failed to appear before Inquiry Officer, he proceeded to submit an ex parte inquiry report dated 15.05.2025. Besides above, petitioner also filed representation to the BOD, praying therein to drop the charges. BOD of the bank, vide resolution No.55 dated 28.04.2025, under item No.2, decided and expressly resolved that ongoing disciplinary inquiry against Mr. K.C. Bhardwaj, DGM, i.e. petitioner, be immediately stopped and related charge sheet be dropped (Annexure P-15). Since despite there being aforesaid decision, respondent No.2 continued with the disciplinary proceedings, petitioner at first instance approached Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, vide representation dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P-17), requesting therein for the stoppage of the inquiry and implementation of the BOD decision dated 28.04.2025, but since nothing was heard, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 16. In nutshell, case of the petitioner is that an attempt is being made by the respondents to review the decision of BOD taken in its meeting on 28.04.2025, whereby it has decided to drop the charges against the petitioner, which is not permissible. 17. As per petitioner, party aggrieved, if any, by the aforesaid decision taken by BOD in its meeting dated 28.04.2025 could have filed an appeal before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, but in the name of confirmation, decision taken in earlier meeting dated 28.04.2025 could not have been reviewed. 18. While placing reliance upon Rule 35 of Rules, 1971, Mr. Dogra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that minutes of BOD meeting are required to be signed and confirmed then and there, meaning thereby, there is no need of confirmation. 18. While placing reliance upon Rule 35 of Rules, 1971, Mr. Dogra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that minutes of BOD meeting are required to be signed and confirmed then and there, meaning thereby, there is no need of confirmation. He submitted that since it was decided by a majority vote that charge sheet be dropped against the petitioner, respondents are estopped from claiming that since the afore decision was not confirmed in its next meeting, decision taken in meeting dated 28.04.2025 is of no consequence. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of Rule 35 of Rules, 1971:- “35. Minutes of the General Meeting - (1) Every Co-operative Society shall keep the minutes of general meetings in a separate book kept for this purpose. (2) The minutes of the meeting shall be drawn up and signed by the Chairman at the close of the agenda of the meeting and the same shall be confirmed by the general house then and there. (3) Until the contrary is proved, every meeting of a society, in respect of the proceedings whereof minutes have been so recorded, shall be deemed to have been duly called and held. 19. Careful perusal of aforesaid Rule clearly suggests that same pertains to the minutes of general meeting. Every Co-operative Society is required to keep the minutes of general meetings in a separate book kept for this purpose and the minutes of the meeting shall be drawn up and signed by the Chairman at the close of the agenda of the meeting and the same shall be confirmed by the general house then and there. However, in the instant case, it is not in dispute that decision to drop charges against the petitioner was taken by the BOD, which vide resolution No.55 dated 28.04.2022 resolved that ongoing disciplinary inquiry against Sh. K.C. Bhardwaj, DGM i.e. petitioner, be immediately stopped and related charge sheet be dropped. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner was unable to point out any specific rule, which deals with the minutes of BOD meeting. 20. To the contrary, Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents, has placed on record bye-laws of Kangra Central Co-operative Bank, Dharamshala. Bye-law 72(2) of Central Co-operative Society, Dharamshala provides for minutes of meetings. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner was unable to point out any specific rule, which deals with the minutes of BOD meeting. 20. To the contrary, Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents, has placed on record bye-laws of Kangra Central Co-operative Bank, Dharamshala. Bye-law 72(2) of Central Co-operative Society, Dharamshala provides for minutes of meetings. Bye-law 72(2) reads as under:- “Minutes of Meeting of the BOD shall be drawn up and signed by the President/Chairman at the close of the agenda of the meeting and the same shall be confirmed by the BOD in its next meeting.” 21. Though Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, attempted to argue that Bye-law 72(2) is contrary to Rule 35 of Rules, 1971, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Dogra, for the reason that Rule 35 of Rules, 1971 specifically deals with the minutes of the general meeting, whereas Bye-law 72(2) specifically deals with the minutes of meeting of BOD. Though bye-laws of the bank appears to have been framed in terms of Sections 7 and 8, which otherwise mandates Co-operative Society to place on record copy of Bye-laws at the time of its registration, but otherwise also, no challenge whatsoever has been made to Bye-laws 72(2) of Central Co-operative Society, Dharamshala in the present case. Rule 146 provides that bye-laws of a society shall not contravene the Act and the Rules, where it is found that any provision in the bye- laws of a society is contrary to the Act or the Rules, the fact shall be brought to the notice of the society by the Registrar, requiring such society to amend the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 within the time specified. The provision of the bye-laws referred to in Rule 2(1) shall cease to operate from the date of receipt of the said notice by the society and any action taken under the said provision thereafter shall be void. In the instant case, there is nothing has been placed on record suggestive of the fact that Bye-law 72(2) of the Central Co-operative Society, Dharamshala is contrary to the Act and Rules, as such, this Court is persuaded to agree with the contention raised at the behest of respondents that decision taken by BOD in its meeting is required to be confirmed in its next meeting. 22. Though Mr. 22. Though Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that confirmation, if any, in terms of Bye-laws 72(2), is a mere formality because while confirming its earlier decision, BOD is estopped from changing the same, rather confirmation is only for the purpose of ensuring that no tinkering is done in the decision taken in previous meeting and minutes of the same are recorded correctly. However, this Court is not impressed with the aforesaid submission of learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner. Though the purpose and object of confirmation have not been elaborately explained in the Act, Rules and Bye-laws, but this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents, that very purpose of confirming the decision of BOD taken in a previous meeting is to ensure that decision, if any, taken contrary to the facts or the provisions contained in the Rules, Acts and Bye-laws is rectified before its becoming part of the compilation of BOD decision, which are subsequently used by the bank authorities for further references. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of Section 32 of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, which deals with annual general meeting. 32. Annual General Meeting:- (1) A general meeting of every society shall be held once at least in every co-operative year for the purpose of- (a) approval of the programme of activities of the society prepared by the committee for the ensuing year, (b) election, if any, in the prescribed manner of the members of the committee other than the nominated members; (c) consideration of the audit report and the annual report; (d) disposal of the net profits; and (e) consideration of any other matter which may be brought forward in accordance with the bye-laws. (2) Such meeting shall be held not more than 15 months after the date of the last preceding meeting held under sub-section (1); Provided that the Registrar may, by general or special order, extend the period for holding such meeting for a further period not exceeding three months; Provided further that if, in the opinion of the Registrar, no such extension is necessary, or if such meeting is not called by the society, within the extended period (if any) granted by him, the Registrar or any person authorised by him may call such meeting in the manner prescribed and that meeting shall be deemed to be general meeting duly called by the society, and the Registrar may order that the expenditure incurred in calling such a meeting shall be paid out of the funds of the society or by such person or persons who, in the opinion of the Registrar, were responsible for the refusal or failure to convene the general meeting. It has been made obligatory for the general body of a co- operative society to meet at least once a year. The agenda of this meeting shall specifically include all or any of the items mentioned in sub-section (1) clause (a) to (e). In case the society fails to convene the general body meeting within the specified period extended by the Registrar, the meeting may be called by the Registrar or any person authorised by him in this behalf. The expenditure so incurred shall be paid out of the funds of the society or by a person responsible for the failure to convene the general meeting. 23. The expenditure so incurred shall be paid out of the funds of the society or by a person responsible for the failure to convene the general meeting. 23. As per aforesaid provision, a general meeting of every society shall be held once at least in every co-operative year for the purpose of approval of the programme of activities of the society prepared by the committee for the ensuing year; election, if any, in the prescribed manner of the members of the committee other than the nominated members; consideration of the audit report and the annual report; disposal of the net profits; and consideration of any other matter which may be brought forward in accordance with the bye- laws, whereas Managing Committee, which is referred as BOD is burdened to perform onerous duties such as to receive and disburse money; to maintain true accounts of money received and expended, accounts of assets and liabilities; to prepare for submission to the annual general meeting receipt and disbursement statement; balance sheet; trading and profit and loss account; appropriation of profits; to prepare the statements of accounts required at audit and to place them before the Auditors; to prepare and submit all the statements and returns, required by the Registrar in such form as he may direct; to enter accounts of the society regularly and periodically in proper books; and to maintain a register of members up to date ( Rule 50 of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operatie Soceities Rules, 1971). 24. Bare perusal of aforesaid duties to be performed by the Managing Committee, which comprises of BOD clearly reveals that Board of Directors are required to take important decisions involving disbursement of money by way of loans etc. Since number of important matters/issues are discussed in BOD meeting and in that process, large number of documents are perused/examined by the BOD and ultimately such documents are made part of the record, Bye- law 72(2) of Kangra Central Co-operative Bank, Dharamshala, has been specifically framed providing therein that minutes of BOD meeting shall be confirmed in its next meeting. There cannot be any comparison between decisions taken in an Annual General Meeting and those taken in a meeting of the BOD, whose minutes are otherwise required to be confirmed in the next meeting in terms of Bye-law 72(2) Kangra Central Co-operative Bank, Dharamshala. There cannot be any comparison between decisions taken in an Annual General Meeting and those taken in a meeting of the BOD, whose minutes are otherwise required to be confirmed in the next meeting in terms of Bye-law 72(2) Kangra Central Co-operative Bank, Dharamshala. Confirmation does not mean that in any eventuality, BOD are required to strict to their decision taken in its earlier meeting, rather they having noticed some mistake committed during previous meeting can always rectify their mistake by recording true/correct facts. In the instant case, there is no doubt that BOD of the bank, in its meeting held on 28.04.2025, decided and expressly resolved that ongoing disciplinary inquiry against Sh. K.C. Bhardwaj, DGM, i.e. petitioner be immediately stopped and related charge sheet be dropped, but if minutes of meeting held on 25.06.2025, as considered in the next meeting dated 28.06.2025 are perused, it appears that Managing Director, who was not present in earlier meeting held on 28.04.2025, apprised BOD with regard to seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, which having taken note of gravity of situation did not confirm the proceedings of BOD meeting held on 28.04.2025, with regard to dropping of departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 20.07.2024, meaning thereby, inquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 13.08.2024 passed by respondent No.2 under Rule 56 (b) (iii) of Bank Service Rules read with Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, are still in existence and respondent/Bank is well within its right to continue with the same. 25. Though record reveals that inquiry, which is the subject of the present case, was initiated against the petitioner prior to his being promoted to the post of DGM, but whether an Officer junior to the petitioner could be appointed as Inquiry Officer, who admittedly during the pendency of such disciplinary proceedings stood promoted to the post of DGM, is a question yet to be considered by the BOD, which in its meeting held on 09.07.2025 through resolution No.66 resolved that charge sheet could not be withdrawn at this stage. More so, in view of the fact that matter was sub judice before this Court in the present writ. More so, in view of the fact that matter was sub judice before this Court in the present writ. Respondents have categorically stated in their reply that BOD, as of now, is ceased of the matter as competent disciplinary authority of the petitioner and any further course of action in the departmental proceedings will be taken by the BOD, subject to any further order passed in the present writ petition by this Court. Since BOD of the bank is yet to decide the issue of appointment of person junior to the petitioner as a Inquiry Officer, this Court sees no reason to go into that aspect of the matter, but certainly it is not persuaded to agree with the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that decision taken by BOD in its meeting held on 25.06.2025, thereby not confirming its earlier decision taken on 28.04.2025 to drop the charge sheet against the petitioner, if permitted to stand, would amount to review of its earlier decision taken in its meeting on 28.04.20025. 26. Since minutes of meeting held on 28.04.2025 were not confirmed in terms of Bye-law 72 (2) of Central Co-operative Bank, Dharamshala in its next meeting, decision, if any, taken in its earlier meeting dated 28.04.2025 cannot be said to be final, rather same, at the time of confirmation in terms of Bye-law 72 (2) of Central Co- operative Bank, Dharamshala, could have been altered/changed by the BOD for the reasons recorded in subsequent meeting, which in the case at hand, held on 25.06.2025. Bare perusal of minutes of subsequent meeting held on 25.06.2025 (Annexure PR-3), reveals that entire facts with regard to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as well as writ petitions including present one were brought to the notice of BOD by Managing Director, who being member of BOD apprised board that charges were clearly proved against the petitioner in the inquiry report and furthermore, no deficiency was found in the process by which the inquiry was conducted taking note of detailed information supplied by respondent No.2. 27. 27. Though for the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court is not persuaded to conclude that decision of BOD taken in its meeting on 25.06.2025, thereby not confirming its earlier decision taken on 28.04.2025 with regard to dropping of charge amounts to review, rather this Court is of the view that before confirmation of minutes of its earlier meeting, BOD are well within their right to rectify its decision/mistake, if any, committed in previous meeting, which in the case at hand has been done, however, this Court is of the view that once it is not in dispute that BOD, after passing of judgment dated 11.12.2024 in CWP No.15133 of 2024, heard the appeal of the petitioner afresh and passed detailed reasoned order dated 23.12.2024 (Annexure P-4) and pursuant to the same, penalty upon the petitioner was waived off and thereafter, petitioner was promoted to the post of DGM vide order dated 06.02.2025 and since then, he is continuously discharging his duties qua the same, petitioner is entitled to due and legitimate promotional benefits along with other benefits pending since 2022 with upto date interest. However, same can be released/ paid subject to outcome of the inquiry initiated against him vide order dated 13.08.2024, which is still in progress as well as other decision, if any, taken by the BOD upon the representation filed by the petitioner dated 02.04.2025. (Annexure P-18) 28. Consequently, in view of the above, first relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, with regard to quashing and setting side of impugned charge sheet dated 20.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) and inquiry report dated 15.05.2025, is rejected, but petition is partly allowed to the extent that petitioner shall be paid due and legitimate promotional benefits and other pay dues pending since 2022 with upto date interest but subject to outcome of inquiry initiated vide order dated 13.08.2024, which is still pending. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.