S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) ALTHOUGH the matter was listed under the heading for interlocutory orders , with the consent of the parties, hearing of the main writ petition itself was taken up. ( 2 ) THE writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 23-11-1998 passed in O. A. No. 5118 of 1992 on the file of the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal ( 3 ) THE only question which arose before the learned Tribunal and before this Court is as to whether the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent by the State was maintainable. ( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal, inter alia, held that having regard to the provisions of A. P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings tribunal) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as the Act ), which has been amended by A. P. Act No, 6 of 1993, the State has lost jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceedings and in terms thereof, it ought to have referred the matter to the Tribunal under the Act. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a decision of this court in M. P. Satyanarayana vs. The State of andhra Pradesh, which is an authority for the proposition that the State is the sole repository power for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. ( 6 ) THE conditions of service of an employee either may be governed by a statute or by Rules framed in terms of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the constitution of India. The mode and manner of holding a departmental proceeding against a delinquent employee being a condition of service, the Legislature of the State has the requisite legislative competence to. enact a law in that regard. By reason of the provisions of the said Act, a new forum has been created. Once a new forum has been created, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the jurisdiction of the State to initiate a departmental proceeding has been taken away. The State, as an employer, does not have the inherent right to conduct a departmental proceeding itself. It must follow the provisions of the act. Section 4 of the Act prior to its amendment reads thus:"4. Cases to be referred to Tribunal: the Government shall refer to the tribunal for enquiry and report such cases as may be prescribed of allegations of misconduct on the part of Government Servants. It must follow the provisions of the act. Section 4 of the Act prior to its amendment reads thus:"4. Cases to be referred to Tribunal: the Government shall refer to the tribunal for enquiry and report such cases as may be prescribed of allegations of misconduct on the part of Government Servants. " ( 7 ) THE said provision after the amendment reads thus:"4. Cases to be referred to Tribunal: the Government may refer to the tribunal for enquiry and report such cases as may be prescribed of allegations of misconduct on the part of Government Servants. " ( 8 ) THIS aspect of the matter is squarely covered by a decision of the Apex Court in state of Andhra Pradesh vs. K. Ramachandran wherein in no uncertain terms it was held that:"section 4 of the Act which was in mandatory terms was amended by andhra" Pradesh Act 6 of 1993 and the word shall occurring in Section 4 was replaced by the word may , which gave a discretion to the Government to refer or not to refer the matter to the Tribunal. Section 4-A which was inserted in the Principal Act by the same Amending Act, namely, Andhra pradesh Act 6 of 1993, gave power to the Government to withdraw at any stage, any case from the Tribunal before its conclusion. This, again indicates that the choice to refer or not to refer the case to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceeding or to withdraw any case already referred to the Tribunal, became available to the government only after the amendment of the principal Act by act 6 of 1993. " ( 9 ) IT is now well settled, having regard to the decision of Justice Frankfurter in vlttarelli vs. Seaton, that he who takes the procedural sword must perish with the sword. Further more, the State has no right to get the alleged misconduct on the part of the delinquent officer enquired into in a forum which is not contemplated under the statute. ( 10 ) APPLYING the well settled principles and having regard to the language used in section 4 as it stood prior to the amendment, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the intent of the Legislature was to take away the jurisdiction of the state in such matters and confer the exclusive jurisdiction in relation thereto upon the Tribunal. ( 10 ) APPLYING the well settled principles and having regard to the language used in section 4 as it stood prior to the amendment, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the intent of the Legislature was to take away the jurisdiction of the state in such matters and confer the exclusive jurisdiction in relation thereto upon the Tribunal. There is no merit in the writ petition.