IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13295 of 2010 1. RAGHUBIR MOCHI S/O LATE FAUDAR MOCHI R/O VILL. AND P.O.- NABANI, P.S.- JHANJHARPUR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DIRECTOR ( HIGHER EDUCATION ) HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ( HIGHER EDUCATION ) HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-DIRECTOR MAITHILI ACADEMY, SHIVPURI, PATNA- 800023 ----------- 2. 25.08.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and Sri J.N. Thakur for the Maithili Academy. 2. Petitioner is serving on the post of Assistant Director in the Maithili Academy. He is aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the Deputy Secretary of the State Government in the Human Resource Development Department, Annexure-9 whereunder departmental proceeding has been initiated against him and memo of charge in Form (Ka) dated 17.12.2008 has been served on the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner being an employee of the Maithili Academy State Government does not have any authority to initiate departmental proceeding against him as he is not a Government servant. Highlighting the aforesaid aspect of the matter he has filed his reply to the - 2 - memo of charge under reply dated 26.2.2009, Annexure- 14. Perusal of Annexure-14 indicates that thereunder petitioner has not only questioned the authority of the State Government to initiate proceeding against him but has also disputed the contents of the charge-sheet on merit as well. 3. For the present, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. Let the Enquiry/Disciplinary Authority deal with the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law considering the questions raised by the petitioner in the show-cause reply. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)