JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. By way of Communication dated 14.10.2015, along with Memorandum of Charge-sheet of even date, disciplinary proceedings against the present petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') has been triggered. 2. Petitioner has oppugned the Charge-sheet dated 14.10.2015 fundamentally on the footing of jurisdiction. 3. Petitioner is presently working as Block Chief Medical Officer, who is under the administrative control of the Medical and Health Department and his services are governed by Medical Services Rules, 1963. As such, if any disciplinary action against the petitioner were to be initiated, the same could be undertaken by his appointing or disciplinary authority. Respondent No.4, Vikas Adhikari, Rohat has no power or authority to issue charge sheet to the petitioner. 4. Mr. Manish Patel learned Additional Government Counsel submitted that the respondent Panchayati Raj Department has authority and jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for minor punishment enshrined under the Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 read with the Government Order dated 02.10.2010 whereby all the Health Centers, including staff and officers have been brought under the administrative control and supervision of the Panchayati Raj Department. 5. In this regard, Mr. Manish Patel invited attention of the Court towards Clause (;) of the above referred Government Order dated 02.10.2010, which is reproduced hereunder:- ; & vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh (CCA Rules) gLrkUrfjr LVkQ ds fy, 17 lh0lh0,0 dh 'kfDr;kWa ftyk ifj"kn@iapk;r lfefr esa fufgr gksxh ijUrq 16 lh0lh0,0 dh 'kfDr;kWa iSr`d foHkkx ds ikl lqjf{kr jgsxhA iapk;rh jkt laLFkkvksa }kjk 17 lh0lh0,0 dh 'kfDr;ksa dk mi;ksx ftyk LFkkiuk lfefr ds ek/;e ls fd;k tkosxkA jkT; ljdkj dk dkfeZd foHkkx fofHkUu foHkkxksa ds gLrkUrfjr LVkWQ ij iapk;rh jkt laLFkkvksa }kjk fu;ekuqlkj 17 lh0lh0,0 dh dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, visf{kr vkns'k tkjh djsxkA 6. A perusal of the Order dated 02.10.2010 particularly Clause (;) thereof leaves no room for ambiguity that the power to initiate disciplinary enquiry proceedings for minor charges, under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 vests with the Panchayati Raj Department. However, such powers are circumscribed by a fetter to the effect that same are to be exercised by the District Establishment Committee. However, such powers are circumscribed by a fetter to the effect that same are to be exercised by the District Establishment Committee. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the proceedings against the petitioner have been launched singularly by the Block Development Officer and there is nothing on record to show that the proceedings against the petitioner has been initiated by the District Establishment Committee. 7. In prima facie view of the Court, the disciplinary proceedings against a Government Servant are required to be undertaken by his parent department, however, without delving upon this issue, even going by the Government Order dated 02.10.2010 which has been heavily relied upon by the respondents, this Court finds that the order impugned dated 14.10.2015 is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. The reason are not for to seek; since Clause (;) provides that the disciplinary action is to be taken by the District Establishment Committee, whereas in the present case, the respondent No.4 has taken unto himself, the task of subjecting the petitioner to disciplinary proceedings, for which he is not authorised by or under the law. 8. In view of the above, the charge sheet dated 14.10.2015 issued to the petitioner is quashed and set aside for want of jurisdiction. 9. Needless to clarify that the respondents shall be at liberty to take disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, if so desired, after following the procedure provided under the Rules and the Order dated 02.10.2010. 10. Petitioner has filed an amendment application seeking to incorporate a challenge to the Order dated 02.10.2010 particularly in relation to the delegation of power of drawing disciplinary proceedings by the Panchayati Raj Department. However, counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the said application at this stage and preserved the right to lay a challenge thereto, at appropriate stage, if occasion so arises and circumstances so necessitate. 11. It goes without saying that such liberty is always there as this Court has not at all gone into the amendment application, much less considering or allowing the same. The writ petition is allowed. Memorandum dated 14.10.2015 and charge sheet of even date are quashed.