Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90833 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6456 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dr. Deepak Mani Nayak Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State respondents. Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions in the matter, which are taken on record. As per the instructions U.P. Medical and Health Services Rules, 2020 are attracted in the case wherein Rule 3(2) appointing authority has been defined to be the Governor. Now therefore, the argument advanced by Sri Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner that State Government does not enjoy the authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings/ departmental enquiry of the petitioner appears to be misplaced. Insofar as the other argument is concerned the incharge Medical Officer of the Medical Health Centre had made a complaint against the petitioner, upon which Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur had requested to the District Magistrate concerned to transfer the petitioner and the District Magistrate taking notice of the reasons assigned in the request letter of the Chief Medical Officer dated 21st November, 2023 recommended for the inquiry against the petitioner which act would amount to traveling beyond the scope and authority of the District Magistrate, also appears to be ill founded for the reason that the District Magistrate is only recommending authority and ultimately the discretion is to be exercised by the appointing authority/ disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority if in its discretion decides to initiate inquiry against its employee for certain charges to be examined as they amount to misconduct within the meaning of the conduct rules, such discretion is well protected in service jurisprudence as in the realm of contract of employment between the employer and employee, the employer reserves his right to proceed against his employee in case of violations of terms and conditions of the contract and obviously where the State is employer then all such service rules including the conduct rules would form terms and conditions of the contract of employment and every such employment is subject to such rules. In the circumstances, I do not consider it to be a fit case to interfere with the order passed by the competent authority to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner. At this stage, Sri Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has already submitted reply to the chargesheet and I consider it appropriate for the disciplinary authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a maximum period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, provided petitioner cooperates throughout the proceedings. With these observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Atmesh Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad