P. B. Bajanthri, J.—Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following relief/reliefs:—

“i. To issue an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 20.05.2016 as contained in memo no. 802 dated 24.05.2016 (Annexure – 5) whereby and whereunder the services of the Petitioners were terminated abruptly and illegally.

ii. To issue an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 20.06.2016 as contained in memo no. 1525 dated 25.06.2016 (Annexure – 9) whereby the services of the Petitioners has been terminated which is wholly based on order dated 24.05.2016.

iii. To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioners into service and pay all consequential benefits legally admissible to them.

iv. To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to produce the entire service record of the Petitioners which would show that the Petitioners have been working continuously without any back or blemish.

v. To any other relief(s) that the Petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. When the matter was heard on 20.04.2022, the following order was passed:—

“Heard learned counsel for respective parties. Learned State counsel seeks time to get instruction with reference to para 8 and 9 of the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioners. He is also hereby directed to ascertain instruction as to before passing of the impugned order whether inquiry has been held by the concerned authorities or not for the reasons that petitioner was regularly paid all benefits including ACP and other benefits.

Re-list this matter on 09.05.2022.”

4. Thereafter, it was listed on 09.05.2022 and the following order was passed:—

“Pursuant to the order dated 20.04.2022, the Joint Director is stated to have filed an affidavit.

Registry is hereby directed to put up the same on the record.

It is learnt that Joint Director has not answered in the affidavit as to whether enquiry has been held before passing the impugned order or not which was the question posed by this Court on 20.04.2022. Therefore, the Joint Director who has filed affidavit is hereby directed to appear in person on the next date of hearing with all relevant records so as to ascertain as to whether enquiry has been held before passing the impugned order or not?

Re-list this matter on 17.05.2022.”

5. Today Dr. Praveen Kumar Pathak, Joint Director is present in the Court along with complete records. Both the Joint Director and the learned government advocate have examined the records whether disciplinary authority has invoked the discretionary power under Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for short “Rules 2005”) in initiating enquiry before passing an impugned order or not? From the records they found that certain preliminary inquiry/investigation is stated to have been conducted. Based on the preliminary inquiry/investigation, the disciplinary authority should have initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rules 2005 either for imposition of major penalty or for minor penalty. In other words article of charges, statement of imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses should have been issued to the petitioners before the impugned order was passed by the concerned authority.

6. Dr. Praveen Kumar Pathak, Joint Director submitted with reference to the records that no charge memo has been issued before passing the impugned order. In the light of these facts and circumstances, accordingly, impugned order dated 20.05.2016 as contained in memo no. 802 dated 24.05.2016 (Annexure - 5) and order dated 20.06.2016 as contained in memo no. 1525 dated 25.06.2016 (Annexure - 9) stand set aside, reserving liberty to the official respondent to initiate enquiry and complete withi