JYOTI SARAN, J.

Heard Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned Assisting Counsel to Government Advocate No.11 for the State.

The petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing the resolution bearing Memo No.4955 dated 4.6.2015 of the State Government issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of rule-17 of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2005’).

In the nature of the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not required to go into the merits of the case for it is the very initiation of the proceeding which is put to challenge by the petitioner and the grounds raised to question the same is present at Annexure-5 which is a letter of the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance) informing the petitioner that he stands discharged from the charges.

It would be relevant to also mention here that while during the pendency of the writ petition the enquiry so initiated is complete, and the enquiry report has been submitted whereafter the petitioner has been put to second show cause.

Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner while going through the sequence of events in which initially six charges were framed against the petitioner vide Anneuxure-2 which is dated 20.9.2013 submits that three more charges were added on 27.1.2014 vide Annexure-3. A reply was filed by the petitioner on 29.1.2014 vide Annexure-4 and it is in consideration thereof that the petitioner was discharged of the allegations vide Annexure-5. Learned counsel has referred to certain file noting enclosed in the proceeding to submit that of the 12 persons charged and proceeded for allegation regarding inferior quality of the road constructed by them, 5 were discharged of the allegation and the enquiry proceeded only against 7. He submits that even when the Departmental Secretary has accepted the explanation of the petitioner to drop the proceeding, it is on a review of the matter that the order of initiation of the proceedings under section-17 of ‘the Rules of 2005’ has been passed which suffers from the following illegalities:

(a) The order initiating disciplinary proceeding is a review of the order dropping the proceedings present at Annexure-5;

(b) Though the appointing authority of the petitioner is admittedly the State Government but in absence of any specific qualification, and in view of the amendment introduced to ‘the rules of 2005’ vide notification dated 20.3.2007 more particularly the table provided thereunder, the Departmental Secretary is fully empowered to take a decision in cases where the appointing authority is not specified, as in the present case;

(c) The decision to initiate proceeding against the petitioner is contrary to statutory provisions underlying rule-17 of ‘the Rules of 2005’ itself; and

(d) The decision to initiate proceedings against the petitioner is discriminatory for on similar charges whereas the State has chosen to drop the proceedings against five of the notices but has proceeded against 7 including the petitioner.

Although Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner also tried to address the Court on the merits of the proceedings as well as on the infirmity of the enquiry report but considering the issue raised herein, I would not be entering into those issues for if the order placed at Annexure-1 is held valid its consequences would obviously follow.

Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned A.C. to G.A.-11 has produced the records to submit that the order present at Annexure-5 is an order issued on the directions of the Departmental Secretary and does not have the approval of the Minister -in- charge. He submits that in fact when the matter reached the Minister -in- charge that it was decided to c