Judgment Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner is working on the post of Divisional Accounts Officer-II under the respondent, Office of Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand. It is the case of the petitioner that he took permission to participate in the selection exercise conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (B.P.S.C.) for appointment to the State Civil Service in which he got selected for the post of District Sub Registrar under the Government of Bihar. In the present writ application he has come with a grievance that the respondent, the Accountant General, Jharkhand is not relieving him to join at the appointed post. From the pleadings in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit of the respondent – Accountant General, the facts which emerges for determining the issue are as follows:- The petitioner was in fact working as Divisional Accounts Officer under deputation in the Water Resources Department with the responsibility to undertake audit of the accounts concerned with the office where he was posted. Due to some irregularities that were detected in the execution of the work the department forwarded the proposed charge sheet in Prapatra 'K' on 15.9.2012 to the office of Accountant General, Jharkhand. Incidentally the said irregularities were brought to the notice of this Court in public interest litigation being W.P.(PIL) No. 5415 of 2009 for which the respondents undertook to initiate departmental proceedings against several employees including those who were employees of the Accountant General. A contempt petition was also pursued and the judgment passed in the contempt petition is at Annexure-B to the counter affidavit dated 7.11.2012 itself. The respondent- Accountant General took a decision to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner on 13.2.2013 itself. However, on 13.5.2013 when the No Objection Certificate(N.O.C) was given to the petitioner for permitting him to participate in the selection exercise conducted by the B.P.S.C , the said N.O.C. did not refer to any pendency of departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Petitioner, therefore participated in the examination and got selected which was conveyed through notification dated 4.10.2013 giving 30 days time to join on the said post. On the application made by the petitioner for being relieved to join at the newly appointed post on lien for 2 years, the respondents intimated him on 13.10.2013 itself that the departmental proceeding is pending against him, therefore he could not be relieved. On the application made by the petitioner for being relieved to join at the newly appointed post on lien for 2 years, the respondents intimated him on 13.10.2013 itself that the departmental proceeding is pending against him, therefore he could not be relieved. Subsequently, on 8.11.2013 charge sheet were also issued against the petitioner for the said departmental proceeding. In the aforesaid background of facts which are not in dispute, the case has been argued on behalf of the writ petitioner and reliance has been placed upon Annexure-9, which is in the nature of office memorandum dated 19.5.1993. According to him as per para 4 there of in the absence of issuance of charge sheet on the relevant date, the respondents should not have withheld the relieving of the petitioner. It is submitted that the N.O.C was issued on 13.5.2013 without any precondition and without referring to the initiation of departmental proceeding and on the date result were declared on 4.10.2013 also charge sheet was not issued. However, the respondents on some pretext or the other delayed the decision to relieve the petitioner on account of issuance of charge sheet, thereafter, petitioner has been compelled to seek extension from the concerned authority in the matter to join in the newly appointed post. Therefore, he has approached this Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Accountant General has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition firstly on the ground that the cause of action is cognizable at the first instance by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal(C.A.T) having jurisdiction as the petitioner is an employee of the Central Government. Secondly, according to the respondents when the petitioner is facing departmental inquiry, the respondents cannot be compelled to relieve the petitioner during the pendency there of. It is submitted that the decision to initiate proceeding was taken even earlier to the issuance of N.O.C., though it may not have been mentioned. But as a matter of fact when the departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner no writ or direction should be issued for relieving, in the said circumstances. The respondent being the employer have right to exercise affective disciplinary control over the employee as such. In the aforesaid factual matrix of the case the writ petition is being heard and decided. The respondent being the employer have right to exercise affective disciplinary control over the employee as such. In the aforesaid factual matrix of the case the writ petition is being heard and decided. From the chronology of facts which are indicated herein above, it is evident that petitioner has been subjected to departmental proceeding, the decision for initiation of which has been taken as early as on 13.2.2013 , only thereafter the N.O.C was issued on 13.5.2013. The petitioner got selected and was notified for appointment on 4.10.2013 but before being relieved the charge sheet has also been issued on 8.11.2013 itself. Therefore, the petitioner while being in the service of the Accountant General, Jharkhand is facing departmental proceeding at the moment. The disciplinary control is one of facts of the master- servant/employer – employee relationship. The respondent- employer is well within its right to withhold permission to such an employee either from resigning/or seeking V.R.S or to leave the post even on lien if he is facing departmental proceeding under the respondent department for alleged misconduct during the course of employment. In the aforesaid circumstances, therefore, this Court is not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to seek writ or direction upon the respondents for relieving him to join at the newly appointed post of Sub Registrar under the Government of Bihar. Though the petitioner's cause of action, at the outset, appears to be cognizable by the learned C.A.T. but even on merit upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, no case for interference seems to have been made out by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.