Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) The writ petitioner in the instant case has prayed for quashing the order dated 29.1.1992 as contained at Annexure -4 (wrongly typed in paragraph 1 as 28.1.1992) by reason whereof a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 (Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi). The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the charge -sheet issued by the Commissioner on 14.8.1991 (Annexure 4/A) issued by the said Commissioner by which charges have been framed on the ground that the said Commissioner has no jurisdiction to do so.
(3.) According to the petitioner, he is a Block Supply Officer and a Gazetted Officer having been appointed by the State Government. According to the petitioner by reason of a resolution dated 9.10.1990, the post of Block Supply Officer has been declared to be the post of Gazetted Officer. The petitioner has also relied upon Annexure -2 which is a Notification dated 10.5.1990 and which shows that the petitioner was transferred to the Chanho Block under the orders of the State Government and as per the order of the Governor of Bihar. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this document is another evidence to prove that the appointing and disciplinary authority is the State Government. Similarly, the petitioner has also relied upon Notification dated 11.7.1988, again issued as per the order of the Governor of Bihar, by reason whereof the petitioner has been given time bound promotion. According to the petitioner, therefore, it was the Government which could have framed charges and proceeded against the petitioner depart -mentally and the framing of charges at the instance of the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, as contained at Annexure 4/A is, therefore, clearly without jurisdiction.;