IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.98 of 2009 1. THE MAGADH CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED., GAYA, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE MAGADH CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., GAYA ------APPELLANTS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS IST SET. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, THE MAGADH CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, GAYA. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE MAGADH CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, IMAMGANJ BRACH, DISTRICT-GAYA. RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS 2ND SET (PROFORMA RESPONDENTS). 6. ASHOK KUMAR, SON OF LATE JAGDISH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF SHASTRINAGAR WEST, P.S.RAMPUR TOWN AND DISTRICT-PATNA. WRIT PETITIONER-RESPONDENT 3RD SET. ----------- For the appellants:- Mr. Aditya Narain Singh,Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Kundan Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State:- Mr. Lalit Kishore, A.A.G.III. ------ 4. 18.2.2009 Reg:- I.A.No.588 of 2009 This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the application, it has been stated that after obtaining the certified copy of the order, legal opinion was sought on 10.5.2008 and - 2 - 12.9.2008 and thereafter an instruction was given to the counsel to file the appeal. The appeal was ultimately filed on 28.1.2009. According to the Stamp Reporter, the appeal is barred by limitation of one year and 41 days. All the steps, aforesaid, have been taken after the limitation had expired. We are of the opinion that cause shown is not sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Application stands dismissed. However, a good cause may not be lost on the ground of limitation we have prima-facie examined the merit of the case. From the order impugned, it is evident that writ petitioner was inflicted punishment on the basis of allegation which was not the subject matter of charge. Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that previous conduct of the petitioner is relevant to determine the punishment. We do not find any difficulty in accepting the broad submission of Mr. Singh but - 3 - here in the present case the past conduct has been made the basis of punishment, which is not permissible in law. Application stands dismissed as also the appeal. B.Kr. ( Chandramauli Kr. Prasad,ACJ ) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )