Purnendu Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Mallick, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajeev Shekhar, learned AC to GA-13 for the State.

2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:—

"(i) To quash the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the respondent no-03, the Director Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna Whereby the respondent no -03, the Director Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna directing the respondent no - 06, the District Education Officer, Purnia to initiate the departmental Proceeding against the petitioner Raman Kumar Singh within a week after receiving the letter. (annexure-P/14)

(ii) Further quash the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by Sri Shiv Nath Ra zak the respondent no - 06, the District Education Officer, Purnia whereby the respondent no - 06 the District Education Officer, Purnia charge sheeted the petitioner Raman Kumar Singh alleging that in four head a) Not handed over the Charge and disobey the order of department, b) Petitioner has been directed by letter no-328 dated 02.02.2023 to hand over charge within two days but it was disobeyed c) Due to keep the financial record in his custody it delayed in payments of various heads of the employees and the students passed out in the examination and as such they suffered by his behaviour and conduct.d) The act of the petitioner Raman Kumar Singh is against the rule of service code. (Annexure-15)

(iii) To grant any other relief or reliefs as to which the petitioner is entitle in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had retired from the post of Head Clerk, Zila School, Prunia on 31.01.2023 and nearly after three months of retirement, a decision was taken by the Director, Secondary Education, directing on 19.04.2023 for initiating a Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner as per the provision contained in Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Accordingly, the petitioner was served 'Prapatra-K' containing the charge-sheet dated 10.05.2023 was communicated to the petitioner. From the content of the charge memo contained in Memo No. 1037 dated 11.05.2023 reveals that a copy of which was only sent to the Regional Director of Education, Purnia Pramandal and Director, Secondary Education by the District Education Officer, Purnia. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is a retired Class-III employee and pursuant to the Letter No. 65 dated 01.03.2023, the petitioner had already submitted the passbook and cheque book to the office of the school, for which he was also given acknowledgment on the same day. On these grounds, learned counsel submitted that the charges contained in 'Prapatra-K' don't constitute misconduct for which the authorities are required to take Disciplinary Action against the petitioner. The petitioner further submitted that though the charge-sheet has been submitted on 10.03.2023 but no action has been taken. The delay caused is against the law as till date Enquiry Officer and Conducting Officer have not been appointed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the writ petition is pre-mature. Merely issuance of a charge memo in absence of any decision of the Appointing Authority to initiate Disciplinary Proceeding against the petitioner no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. The writ petition is not maintainable.

5. Heard the parties.

6. It is a settled principle of law that a charge memo can be challenged on the limited grounds and the judicial review against the charge memo is to be exercised cautiously. The writ petition against the charge memo can be entertained, if the same has been issued by an incompetent authority, having no jurisdiction or an allegation of malafide is raised or if the same is in violation of the statutory rules in force. In this regard, it would be gainful to reiterate