IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9681 of 2010 1. Anil Kumar Singh S/O Late Dhaneshwar Prasad Singh R/O Vill. And Post- Bijulia, P.S.- Samho, Distt.- Begusarai, Presently Working As Assistant In The Office Of District Welfare Officer/District Scheduled Caste/Tribe Welfare Officer, Lakhisarai Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Director, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Department Of Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Welfare, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Director, Welfare, Munger Commissionary, Munger 4. The Collector, Lakhisarai 5. The District Welfare Officer/District Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Welfare Officer, Lakhisarai 6. The Additional Collector, Establishment, Lakhisarai 7. Sri Shekhar Chandra Verma, District Development Commissioner-Cum-Enquiry Officer, Lakhisarai ---------------------------------- 4 . 30.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the memo of charges drawn up against him on 26.4.2010 in the pen of the District Magistrate. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is an employee of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Department a state cadre. The District Magistrate is not the appointing authority/controlling authority/ disciplinary authority which is confined to Collectorate cadre only. The chargesheet issued by him is therefore without jurisdiction. Reliance is placed to Rule 16 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules 2005, to contend that it is only the Government or the appointing authority or an authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate who may initiate a disciplinary proceeding. The District Magistrate has subsequently written to the Principal Secretary of the 2 petitioner’s parent department in context of the departmental proceeding. It is the contention of the petitioner in his pleadings that the departmental proceedings have still not commenced because of this issue of jurisdiction though he has filed his show cause. The appointing authority at the time of his appointment was the Divisional Deputy Director. Subsequently the power has been vested in the Director. Counsel for the State submitted that the Divisional Deputy Director of the Welfare Department is subordinate to the District Magistrate and therefore the District Magistrate may be competent to initiate the proceeding also. The pleadings of the petitioner do not appear to be complete on the issue of the appointing authority. It is his contention that at the time of his appointment the Divisional Deputy Director of the Welfare Department was the appointing authority. Subsequently the Director has been made the appointing authority. Notifications in respect of both are not on the record. It is not possible for this Court to speculate what may or may not be contained in the notification with respect to the respective powers, status of appointment already made etc. Even otherwise on the pleadings of the petitioner the matter appears to be one matter of procedure. If that be so and the District Magistrate has already written to the Principal Secretary of the Department, let the Divisional Deputy Director of the Welfare Department who was the appointing authority when the petitioner came to be appointed, examine the recommendation of the District Magistrate and then issue appropriate orders with respect to the chargesheet drawn up by the District Magistrate treating it as a recommendation. Conversely if the Divisional Deputy Director opines that under the appropriate 3 notification Director of the Welfare Department alone was now competent to take such decision he shall forward the matter to the Director who shall then issue appropriate order/directions. It is expected that such a decision shall be taken by the concerned authority at the earliest no sooner that the present order is brought to his attention so that the status of the departmental proceeding does not unnecessarily linger. In the event that the authority decides to initiate the departmental proceeding it is required to be completed within a period of six months from the date of commencement provided the petitioner himself cooperates. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)