Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner faced a departmental proceeding vide memo no.2332 dated 13th September 2003 issued by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patna Division (Annexure-1). He was posted as Managing Director, Gopalganj Central Cooperative Bank Limited at the relevant point of time. Following four charges were framed :-

(i) Continuous absence from the headquarters and appears for one day at Gopalganj only for receiving salary;

(ii) was found absent in the District Level Meeting of Integrated Cooperative Development Project (ICDP);

(iii) his absence from headquarters and lack of interest has adversely affected the performance of the Cooperative Bank;

(iv) he failed to offer reply to the show-cause for remaining absent from headquarters and also failing to obey the Government orders.

3. The Joint Registrar, Saran Division, Chapra submitted the report through letter dated 28th June 2005. In respect of charge no.(i) his explanation that he was on tour was not found substantiated by any document or official notings of having gone on official tour. He had failed to inform the District Magistrate who is the Reviewing Authority. Inquiry Officer was however not satisfied that the charge relating to coming to the headquarters at Gopalganj for only one day to receive salary for the month was substantiated.

4. Inquiry Officer, however, found the Charge No.(ii) relating to his absence in attending the District Level ICDP meeting proved. Charge No.(iii) was not found substantiated as during the period of posting of the petitioner the net worth of the bank had increased. Charge No.(iv) was found proved. Inquiry report along with the documents were supplied to the competent authority under the State of Jharkhand as in the meantime petitioner being allocated to the State of Jharkhand had joined on 17th May 2005. Second show-cause notice was issued vide memo no.1066 dated 20th June 2006 (Annexure-5) by the Principal Secretary, Cooperative Department asking him to furnish reply within ten days. Reminder was also sent by letter no.2102 dated 6th December 2006 but the same was not furnished.

5. Petitioner has enclosed a reply to the show-cause as Annexure-6 which however is dated 9th January 2008 i.e. about 1 and ½ years after the issuance of second show-cause notice dated 20th June 2006. The disciplinary authority found the charges relating to unauthorized absence proved. It also did not find the opinion of the Inquiry Officer relating to charge no.(i) so far as it relates to attending the headquarters at Gopalganj for one day for receiving salary of the entire month as acceptable. Petitioner was found absent on two dates and also on the date of the meeting of the District Level Committee of ICDP. Vide notification bearing no.294 dated 11th February 2008 (Annexure-7) a penalty of withholding of five increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon him which is under challenge.

6. Following grounds have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the challenge :-

I. The continuance of the inquiry under the Government of Bihar even after allocation of the petitioner to the State of Jharkhand in 2005 was without jurisdiction.

II. Petitioner did not get adequate opportunity to participate in the departmental proceeding as he had been allocated to Jharkhand during its continuance and had joined in Jharkhand on 17th May 2005.

III. The second show-cause notice is not proper in the eye of law as it does not denote the proposed punishment.

IV. The charges of absence on two dates from headquarters and on one date in the District Level Committee even if assumed to be proved were not of such gravity which justifies infliction of major penalty of withholding of five increments with cumulative effect.

V. The Inquiry Officer did not find charge no.(iii) to be proved as during the period of petitioner’s posting in Gopalganj Central Cooperative bank the net worth of the bank had increased. The disciplin