G.M. LODHA, J — The petitioner Shri G.R. Bhati, Branch Manager of the Ganganagar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd., Shri- Ganganagar, has filed this writ petition against the show-cause notice served on him by the respondent-Administrator of the Bank. 2. The show-cause notice annexure-8 reproduced as under:- "THE GANGANAGAR KENDRIYA SAHKARI BANK LTD. SHRI GANGANAGAR. No. F (3)(141)Estt/General/ Dated 10.1.1981 From: Administrator (Collector) The Ganganagar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd. Sri Ganganagar. To, Shri Gurudyal Ram Bhati Br. Manager (Under suspension) The Ganganagar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd. Sri Ganganagar. Sub: Disciplinary action. Ref: Charge sheet No. 9080 dated 12.4.80 An enquiry was conducted to enquire into certain allegations framed against you. On perusal of the Enquiry Report the undersigned has provisionally decided to dismiss you from the services of the Bank. Before any final action is taken an opportunity is given to you to make a representation in writing or in person, if any, against the proposed action. 2. Your reply to this notice should reach not later than 15 days from the receipt of this notice. Sd/- Administrator, The Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd., Sri Ganganagar." A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent counsel Mr. Calla that the writ application is pre-mature and should not be entertained at this stage. 3. In brief the facts giving rise to this writ petition relates to the charge-sheet served on the petitioner for various omissions and commissions. The report of Enquiry Officer, annixure-9 misinterpreted to be a report of exoneration by Mr. B.L. Sharma but contested to be so by Mr. Calla. According to Mr. Sharma the Enquiry Officer exonerated him of all the charges. But Mr. Calla asserts that the Enquiry Officer has held him guilty though the language used may be not equivocal. 4. Mr Sharmas contention is that the Administrator has not been validly appointed, that the Enquiry Officer having exonerated the petitioner, the Administrator could not have punished him without first recording a note of dissent and serving a copy of it on the petitioner as contemplated by Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules and that Rules 16 and 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules are ultra vires being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Callas objection is that the petitioner can take all these objections before the Administrator and thereafter if an adverse order is passed then only he gets a legal right to challenge the same before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and that too after exhausting the remedy of appeals and revisions provided under the Rules. It was also argued that Rules 16 and 17 are intra vires and not ultra-vires. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Prima facie the appointment of the respondent as Administrator is not invalid Even then in case, Mr Sharma feels on his interpretation of the Rules that the Administrator could not have been appointed, he can raise all these objections before the Administrator who can decide the same in a detached and objective manner. Similarly, the objections regarding other points extracted above, can also be raised before the Administrator and he would be in a better position to decide them. It is true that in a given case this Court can interfere even against interlocutory orders and during the pendency of the departmental proceed-ings also because there is no bar under Article 226 of the Constitution, but those are cases of grave injustice and irreparable loss. In view of this it is not necessary to discuss in details the Calcutta view canvassed by Mr. Sharma, which depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, this Court has conis-tently taken the view as an act of self restraint, normally not to interfere during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. The reason is not far to seek. Firstly, the ! departmental authority is ceased of the questions involved therein and is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of that case having full record With it and there after it is in the interest of all concerned that all objections must be decided by that authority in the first instance. Secondly it would be premature to anticipate that the final order would be passed against the petitioner. A departmental authority can act in a detached and unbiased manner and decide all objections objectively. 7. In the present case the Collector of the District is Administrator and there is no reason to hold that he would not examine all the objections in an unbiased and detached manner. A departmental authority can act in a detached and unbiased manner and decide all objections objectively. 7. In the present case the Collector of the District is Administrator and there is no reason to hold that he would not examine all the objections in an unbiased and detached manner. Lastly, in case, the petitioner is exonerated finally or not punished, then there would no occasion to come to this Court and all this labou or would be lost. Again, the Rules themselves provide for appeals and revisions and therefore, there is an alternative remedy which is both adequate and efficacious and without exhausting them the petitioner cannot be allowed to rush to this Court in hot haste at this premature stage. 8. So far as challenge to the validity of Rule 16 and 17 is concerned, Mr. Sharma except mentioning it at the fag end of the arguments after this Court ordered that the judgment is reserved, did not develop and elaborate it any further. All that, he argued, was that no guidelines have been given in these Rules 16 and 17 and that in Railway matters where similar provisions have been challenged under the Railway law, a few writ petitions have been admitted. This was a half hearted feeble effort to challenge the validity of Rules 16 and 17. 9. Even then I have examined this submission and I am of the opinion that the Rajasthan Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules read as a whole provide ample material and guide-lines. The disciplinary proceedings are contained in part V of Rule 14 which provides for nature of penalties. There are major penalties and minor penalties. Rule 15 mentions the Disciplinary authorities. Rule 16 provides the procedure for imposing major penalties. Rule 16 is detailed one and it has got a number of clauses and deal in details the procedure to be adopted. Rule 17 provides for the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Then there are provisions for appeals, reviews and revisions joint enquiries etc. These rules have been made for disciplinary proceedings and the various acts of omissions and commissions are punishable. 10. It is well established law that every section need not provide detailed guidelines, criteria or principles and that is moreso in the procedural enactment. The classification Control and Appeal Rules are therefore, not open to any challenge under Art. 16 of the Constitution. 11. 10. It is well established law that every section need not provide detailed guidelines, criteria or principles and that is moreso in the procedural enactment. The classification Control and Appeal Rules are therefore, not open to any challenge under Art. 16 of the Constitution. 11. The result is, that this writ petition fails, and is therefore, dismissed. The petitioner would be at liberty to taken all these objections before the Administrator within one month from today, and the Administrator would decide them by a speaking order, giving reasons in details and discussing each & every point raised and pressed before the authority either in the form of written objections or verbal submissions, as the case may be. The petitioner is further given liberty to move this Court, in case of any adverse orders, if so advised. 12. The writ petition is dismissed in limine without any order as to costs.