Purnendu Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Narendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ms. Dilkash Khan and Mr. Pravin Kumar, learned counsels for the respondents.

2. Petitioner has inter alia prayed for following reliefs in the paragraph No.1 of the writ petition:—

(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of Mandamus for making declaration of the Inquiry Report as perverse and also for quashing the aforesaid Inquiry Report.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the findings and final order of the Disciplinary Authority, P.C. Sinha, Regional Manager, Patna in the matter of Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner, Assistant Manager, Branch Office, Boring Road, Patna previously posted at Patliputra Colony Branch, pursuant to Charge Sheet No.PRO/DAW/05- 06/69 dated 24.3.06. whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been given the following punishment:-

“Reduction of two stages in time scale of pay for a period of two years, with further direction that the C.S.O. will not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and the expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing future increment of his pay.”

(iii) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the finding and final order of the Appellate Authority vide Letter No.20-DAW-2007-08-552 dated 11.02.2008 whereby and whereunder the findings and final order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 6.10.2007 has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

(iv) For issuance of a writ, order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus for commanding the concerning authority to issue direction to the Regional Manager (Respondent No.3) for retrieval of all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

(v) For any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled to.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the penalty order dated 06.10.2007 (Annexure 2) needs to be interfered with in so far as reduction of two stages in time scale of pay for a period of three years with further direction that CSO (petitioner) will not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and expiry of such period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing future increment of his pay in terms of Regulation 4(f) of Central Bank of India Officers Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner was served with the charge memo dated 24.03.2006, contained in Annexure 4 along with Annexure I, containing the article of charge, Annexure II, containing statement of imputations of misconduct in support of articles of charge (Annexure I) against the petitioner, while he was posted at Boring Road, Branch, Patna and Annexure III, the list of document/witness in order to substantiate the charges levelled against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel submitted that charge memo refers the commission of alleged misconduct, while the petitioner was one of the members of the Managing Committee of Central Bank of India Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Patna and out of the public deposit mobilized by him in the said Cooperative Society, he diverted the bank deposit to the said Cooperative Society, while he was working in time deposit department at Bank Boring Road Branch, Patna and earned commission from the said Cooperative Society and by way of certain illustration (Annexure II to the charge memo), 7 cheques of different dates and different years are said to be issued but the same do not concern with the posting of the petitioner while he worked as in-charge of time deposit.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that soon after the charge memo was served to the petitioner in respect of Annexure 3, 7 cheques of different dates of different amount have