JUDGMENT Sarwar Ali, J. In this writ application the petitioner prays for quashing of Annexure 1, the order of the State. Government dated 10-12-1969, imposing certain minor punishments, as also directing that the period of his suspension will not be treated on duty and his emoluments for the period of suspension will be limited to the subsistence allowance already drawn by and admissible to him. He further prays for quashing of Annexure 2 communicating the decision of the State Government rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed to Bihar Finance Services in the year 1953. He was in the year 1968 working as an Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Patna Division. By order dated 2-8-1968 (Annexure 3) he was placed under suspension. A disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against him. Charges were served on him and an enquiring officer was appointed who held the enquiry and submitted a report in which he found charge nos. 4 and 5 proved against the petitioner. The report of the enquiring officer was accepted. Thereafter second show cause notice, as envisaged under Article 311 of the Constitution, was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his show cause. This was considered, and order of punishment as contained in Annexure 1 was passed. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Governor or Bihar, under rule 57 (5) of Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1950 (Hereinafter referred to as the Rule). The petitioner states that a further report was called for from the enquiring officer in respect of matters mentioned in the letter addressed to the enquiring officer. He submitted a report. The petitioner claims that the report was in his favour so far as charge no. 4 is concerned. Thereafter the matter was further examined by the Government and the appeal was rejected as stated above. 3. The attack of the petitioner so far as Annexure 1 is concerned is two fold. It is contended that (1) there was an infraction of rule 55 A of the Rules inasmuch as the report of enquiring officer was not made available to him and (2) that the order stating that the petitioner will be entitled only to subsistence allowance during the period of suspension was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not required to show cause against this proposed punishment. It was next contended that it is the Governor and not the State Govt. who is authorised to pass orders in appeal. Since the appellate order in this case has not been passed by the Governor, the petitioner is entitled to reconsideration of his appeal by him. 4. So far as the infraction of rule 55 A is concerned I find, that there is no merit in this contention. The petitioner has not averred in his writ application that the enquiry report was not made available to him and that he was thereby prejudiced. The first show cause notice has also not been annexed to the writ application. The petitioner has not annexed his show cause after the second show cause notice was given to him. We do not know whether he made any grievance on account of the alleged non-availability of the enquiry report. In fact, the extracts from the petition of appeal (Annexure 10) indicates that the copy of the report was available to him, inasmuch as he has commented on the findings in this petition of appeal. It is, therefore, neither possible to hold that the enquiry report was not available to the petitioner nor it is possible to hold that the petitioner was in any way prejudiced in his defence on account of the alleged non-availability of the said report in presenting his defence and show cause. There is thus no infirmity in the order (Annexure 1) on the first ground suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Now, coming to the second ground of, attack on Annexure 1, I find that here again the writ application does not specifically aver that no notice was given to the petitioner in respect of the proposed order under rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code which is relevant rule in this context. The necessary averments being absent, it is not possible to hold on the materials on the record, that there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice in the circumstances of the present case. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider and decide whether the decision reported in M. Gopalkrishna Naidu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh which deals with the Fundamental Rule 54, will be applicable to a case under rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider and decide whether the decision reported in M. Gopalkrishna Naidu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh which deals with the Fundamental Rule 54, will be applicable to a case under rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code. Since I am deciding in this case that the appeal of the petitioner is still pending and has to be disposed of in accordance with law, I would like to make it clear that the petitioner will be entitled to raise this point in appeal. 5. The real question of importance that falls to be decided in this case therefore, is whether the appeal preferred by the petitioner has to be decided by the Governor or it can be dealt with by the State Govt. The relevant rule, being rule 97 (5), is as follows : "A member of a Provincial Services or member of Specialist Services under the administrative control of the Local Government of Governors Province, may appeal to the Governor from an order passed by the Local Government." The petitioner contends that the power to decide an appeal against the order of the State Government is with the Governor. The State's affidavit takes up the position that and "under the rules of Executive Business, the Chief Minister is final authority for imposing aforesaid punishments or to dispose of an appeal against punishments". Reliance has been placed on rule 18 and 28 (a) (ix) of the Rules of the Executive Business. It is further averred that the disposal of appeal under rule 57 (5) of the Civil Service Rules is not a business with respect to which the Governor is by or under the Constitution required to act in his discretion and as such the Governor cannot dispose of an appeal under rule 57 (5). Reliance in this connection is placed on the decision reported in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. S. Kameshwara Rao and another in paragraphs 31, 36 and 38. 6. It is undisputed that by virtue of Article 313 of the Constitution existing service rules continue to be in force so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. Moreover, after coming into force of the Constitution, a notification, being Notification No. 3555-3I-27/50-A dated 15.4.1950 was issued. 6. It is undisputed that by virtue of Article 313 of the Constitution existing service rules continue to be in force so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. Moreover, after coming into force of the Constitution, a notification, being Notification No. 3555-3I-27/50-A dated 15.4.1950 was issued. This Notification is as follows :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Bihar is pleased to make the following rule, namely: "All enactments, rules and orders, whether made under any enactment or otherwise, which regulated the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs which are now the affairs of the State of Bihar and which were in force immediately before the 26th January 1950, shall, until provision is made by or under an Act of the State Legislature to regulate such recruitment and conditions of service, be in force as if they had been made by virtue of the powers under the said proviso". The effect of this Notification is that the Service Rules under consideration will be deemed to have been made under Article 309 of the Constitution. In this back ground, the impact of Articles 154 (1), 163 (1) and 166 (3) of the Constitution will now have to be considered. These articles are as follows :- "154 (1). The executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this constitution. 163 (1). There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his function, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion. 166 (3). The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Govt. of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion". Article 154 deals with the executive power of the State which vests in the Governor. of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion". Article 154 deals with the executive power of the State which vests in the Governor. The Governor for the convenient transaction of the business of the Government may make rules. These rules are called Rules of Executive Business. They cannot in any way, however, affect the power of the Governor where he is to act in his discretion. In respect of the executive powers of the State the Governor is to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. It is therefore, clear that so far as the exercise of Executive powers are concerned they are to be exercised in the manner as already indicated. Thus, where the State Government has to decide whether to take disciplinary action against an officer the decision has to be taken in accordance with the Rules of Executive Business (for such rules have been framed). The Governor does not exercise his individual judgment in that matter, for it is not a matter where he is required by the Constitution to act in his discretion. But there is nothing in the Constitution which prevents the provision of appeal to the Governor under Powers exercised either under Article 309 of the Constitution, or as a result of the applicability of rules which have force of law as provided under Article 313. In fact, there is no limitation to the exercise of power under the relevant Articles of the Constitution whereby an appellate forum is provided in matters of appeal against the order of the State Government. The Constitution does not debar the Governor from being designated as an appellate authority, or continuing as such if there is a pre-existing provision to that effect. 7. Rules 18 of the Rules of Executive Business is as follows: "Except as otherwise provided by any other rule, cases shall ordinarily be disposed or by or under the authority of the Minister in charge who may by means of standing order give such directions as he thinks fit for the disposal of cases in the department. 7. Rules 18 of the Rules of Executive Business is as follows: "Except as otherwise provided by any other rule, cases shall ordinarily be disposed or by or under the authority of the Minister in charge who may by means of standing order give such directions as he thinks fit for the disposal of cases in the department. Copies of such standing orders shall be sent to the Governor and the Chief Minister:" Rule 28 (a) and (ix) is as follows:- "The following cases shall be submitted to the Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary by the Secretary of the department concerned after consideration by the Minister in charge but before the issue of order X X X X (ix) Proposals to suspend either as a punishment or otherwise officers of State Services, or to impose on such officers the penalty of censure, withholding of increments or promotions or of reduction in rank". The effect of these rules, in my view, is that when the order or suspension or dismissal etc. is passed by the State Government it must be consistent with these rules. At that stage the Minister and the Chief Minister do come into the picture. But these rules, in my view, do not deal with appeals. We cannot, therefore, cull out from these rules an appellate power in the Chief Minister, as is contended on behalf of the State. In fact, if we do not hold that the appeal lies to the Governor, there would be no right of appeal at all. This was also the view in Kameshwara Rao's case (supra). 8. It was contended on behalf of the State that the Constitutional head of the State should not be bothered with administrative matters which lies within the domain of the State Government. This, it was contended, is also the spirit of the Constitution. If that is so, it only means-that the rules are defective and have to be amended. But as long as the rules stand, as they are today, neither the existence nor the utility of the appellate power can be denied. 9. I must now refer to the decision relied upon by the State. If that is so, it only means-that the rules are defective and have to be amended. But as long as the rules stand, as they are today, neither the existence nor the utility of the appellate power can be denied. 9. I must now refer to the decision relied upon by the State. The basis of the decision is that since relevant rules vested appellate power in the Governor exercising his individual discretion, and since the constitution did not provide for exercise of individual judgment by the Governor in such matters, the aforesaid rule would not be consistent with the provisions of the Constitution. In my view this case is distinguishable, because in the rule under consideration there is no mention of the expression 'individual' judgment' which was there in the rule under consideration by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. I am further of the view that there is no inconsistency in rule 57 (5) and any provisions of the Constitution; in so far as the Governor is constituted as an appellate authority. The other point of distinction is that rule 97 will be deemed to have been made under Article 309 of the Constitution, which was not the position in the Andhra Pradesh case. I may also observe that in disciplinary proceedings the stakes for a Government servant are too high. It may not only mar his future career but may in some cases result in dismissal or discharge. The right of appeal in such a situation is a matter of first importance. Even if the two views were evenly balanced, I would be inclined to so interpret the law as to preserve the right of appeal rather than to destroy it. But as I have already said, in my opinion, the rules do envisage on proper interpretation of the relevant provision of the Constitution, the existence of a right of appeal to a designated authority, the Governor in this case. I may state that the case of Madan Gopal Sharan V. State of Bihar although not on all fours, lends support to the view I have taken. 10. In the result, the writ application is allowed in part Respondents are directed to place the appeal of the petitioner before the Governor to be disposed of in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Lalit Mohan Sharma, J., I agree. Application allowed.