IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7209 of 2010 Md. Nasim, Son of Md. Hanif, resident of Village Sabutar, Police Station Krityanandnagar, District Purnea……Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. The District Magistrate-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Purnea, 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum- Departmental Proceeding Conducting Officer, Purnea. 4. The Block Development – cum - Deputy Establishment Officer, Dhamdaha, Purnea……………….…………………………..…………………Respondents ----------- 2. 27.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has challenged a communication from the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Conducting Officer directing him to appear before him vide Annexure-7. The contention of the petitioner is that when the Conducting Officer himself completed the inquiry and submitted his report, he had no authority to ask the petitioner to appear before him again. Documents on the record show that the Block Development Officer had not submitted certain documentary evidences in the inquiry for which notice was issued to him by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Collector, vide Annexure-6. Thereafter, the Block Development 2 Officer submitted documentary evidences. Hence, enclosing a copy of the said documentary evidences, petitioner was asked by the Conducting Officer, vide Annexure-7, to appear before him. Although it is not on record, but it may be that the Disciplinary Authority might have asked the Conducting Officer to hold further enquiry after the documentary evidences were received from the Block Development Officer. Admittedly, the inquiry is pending against the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority has not passed final orders. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. If orders are passed in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, he will be at liberty to challenge the same on whatever grounds may be available to him in respect of any procedural irregularity committed in the proceeding. The writ application is dismissed. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)