JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner was imposed with minor punishment of withholding of 1 annual increment without cumulative effect with further stipulation that period of his suspension would be counted for his pensionary benefits but he would not get any salary beyond the subsistence allowance by the office order no. 296 dated 18.05.2011 passed by the Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (BSRTC). Patna, Bihar. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him with the charge that being in the capacity of Divisional Manager, Patna achievement in I.P.E.K.M. were less than the expected yardstick in the month of March to May 2010. Less work was taken from employees who discharged a better I.P.E.K.M. while more work was given to those employees who showed lesser income to the Corporation. The Central Flying Squad had noticed several irregularities during the said period though the Divisional Flying Squad did not find any such irregularity. Performance of the vehicles in his tenure was also less. This reflected lack of proper supervision on his part. The Conducting Officer after proper inquiry found the charges partially established. He also opined that petitioner in the capacity of Divisional Manager should have taken strong action and proper supervision on his subordinate officers and staffs, which he failed to do. The delinquent petitioner had tried to explain the charges by stating through his show cause that dereliction of the responsibilities was primarily of the Superintendent of the Depot. This explanation was not accepted by the disciplinary authority as the responsibility of supervision lied upon the Divisional Manager. During the same period the Central Flying Squad had noticed 23 irregularities in his area while the petitioner as a Divisional Manager had pointed out only 9 such instances. It was also taken note that between the period November 2009 to June 2010 the Divisional Flying Squad had not found a single irregularity in the same area when the Central Flying Squad had found 19 irregularities. This showed that his supervision was extremely poor which caused financial loss to the Corporation as well. Upon consideration of the inquiry report and the material adduced during inquiry and explanation of the petitioner, departmental proceeding was closed with a minor punishment of withholding of 1 annual increment without cumulative effect by the impugned order. 3. This showed that his supervision was extremely poor which caused financial loss to the Corporation as well. Upon consideration of the inquiry report and the material adduced during inquiry and explanation of the petitioner, departmental proceeding was closed with a minor punishment of withholding of 1 annual increment without cumulative effect by the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to question the findings rendered by the disciplinary authority on the ground that due opportunity was not given to him. Inquiry repot was also not served before the impugned order of punishment was passed. On being asked, he however submitted that petitioner has superannuated. The period of his suspension is to be counted in the computation of post-retirement benefits. 4. Though time was allowed to the respondent BSRTC and the State of Jharkhand to file counter affidavit but counter affidavit has only been filed by the State of Jharkhand. Petitioner s services were transferred to the State of Jharkhand in August 2011 vide Annexure-12. Learned Counsel Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad submits that he is no longer the retained counsel on behalf of BSRTC. 5. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and the material facts borne on record taken note above. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is quite explicit on the charges and the findings recorded during inquiry against the petitioner where he participated. A plea has been raised by the petitioner based on Annexure-4 that certain documents were not supplied to him. However, it can t be lost sight of that the disciplinary authority has considered not only the report of the Inquiry Officer but also the explanation submitted by the petitioner absolving himself of the responsibility of strict supervision over his subordinate officers and staffs in his capacity as a Divisional Manager. The disciplinary authority who is the Administrator of the Corporation had a valid reason to discard the explanation of the petitioner that responsibility of supervision did not lie upon him. Petitioner being Divisional Manager of the Corporation in the Patna Area failed to check or report instances of irregularity while the Central Flying Squad of the Corporation had noticed 19 such irregularities during the same period. The disciplinary authority in his wisdom however did not consider it necessary to impose major punishment upon petitioner. Petitioner being Divisional Manager of the Corporation in the Patna Area failed to check or report instances of irregularity while the Central Flying Squad of the Corporation had noticed 19 such irregularities during the same period. The disciplinary authority in his wisdom however did not consider it necessary to impose major punishment upon petitioner. As such the ground urged to question the imposition of minor punishment of withholding of 1 annual increment without cumulative effect does not stands to reason. Minor punishment can be imposed even without full dress inquiry, after service of show cause. As a matter of fact the disciplinary authority has also indicated that the period of his suspension would be counted for his pensionary benefits. Petitioner has already retired from service. 6. On consideration of totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find sufficient grounds to exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.