Order Heard Mr. S.C. Mittal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Shanker, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner who is presently holding the post of Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes a Dumka, is aggrieved by initiation of the departmental proceeding against him while he was holding the post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes at Jamshedpur. The main ground for challenge is that prior to issuance of charge-sheet, no preliminary inquiry was held and no prior, notice to show-cause was issued to him and further that the charges against him are all wrong and baseless. 3. One M/s International Auto Ltd., Gamaharia filed a W.P.(T) No. 4231 of 2005 before this Court against the respondents-State to refund the entire Sales Tax amounting to a sum of Rs. 35,97,399.48 Paise, which was wrongly realized by the Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro in November, 2000. The said Writ Petition was heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by Order dated 16.2.2006, as contained in Annexure-1 to this Writ Petition. From perusal of the said order, it appears that the Division Bench of this Court directed to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs. 35,97,399.48 Paise, within one month with statutory interest as prescribed under the Bihar Finance Act. 4. There is no controversy so far as refund of amount of Tax i.e. Rs. 35,97,399.48 Paise is concerned. The dispute is only with regard to refund of the amount of statutory interest over the amount of Tax. According to the petitioner he, pursuant to the order and directions of this Court, determined the amount of interest payable to M/s International Auto Ltd., Gamaharia to the tune of Rs. 14,00,620/- by his Order dated 9.6.2006. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, any action taken by the petitioner in determining the amount of interest was in compliance of the order and direction of this Court whereas, according to the respondents, the petitioner, in order to extend the benefits to M/s International Auto Ltd., Gamaharia wrongly determined the amount of interest though the same was not payable and thereby, asked for release of the amount of Rs. 14,00,620/- for payment to the assessee. 6. 14,00,620/- for payment to the assessee. 6. According to the respondents, the petitioner, at one hand forwarded his order dated 9.6.2006 to his higher authority for approval of his order determining the amount of interest whereas on the other hand, without awaiting for the approval, he requested for release of required fund for payment of amount of interest to the assessee which' amounted dereliction in discharge of his duties. 7. This Court, at this preliminary stage of the departmental proceeding, is not required to examine the falsity or truthfulness of the charge against which show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. That may be examined departmentally after the petitioner files his show-cause. If any comment is made by this Court at this preliminary stage that will certainly prejudice the case of either of the parties. So far as issuance of prior notice to show-cause or holding a preliminary inquiry before issuance of charge-sheet is concerned, I find that there is no hard and fast rule in the service law to hold a preliminary inquiry before departmental inquiry is initiated against an employee. It is well settled that a preliminary enquiry is usually held to determine as to whether a prima facie case is made out for initiating a departmental proceeding and in such preliminary enquiry the delinquent not entitled to be given a notice. In the instant case, the petitioner has been asked to explain the charges against him and thus the petitioner has been given a better chance to explain his position. Only because a preliminary inquiry is not held prior to issuance of charge-sheet, the departmental proceeding itself does not become illegal in any manner. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.