ORDER : In this writ application, petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire proceedings arising out of Notification No.3228 dated 14.02.2017 (Annexure 10) issued by the Deputy Secretary, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, Ranchi whereby a Committee consisting of three Officers was constituted to conduct enquiry into so called allegations levelled against the petitioner by 18 Security Personnel and to enquire into the issues raised by the petitioner in her application against Sunil Kumar (respondent No.6). Petitioner has consequently prayed for quashing the minutes of meeting dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure 12) of the Enquiry Committee headed by Mithilesh Kumar, Joint Secretary, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly. Petitioner has further prayed to declare and hold the entire action of the respondents including private respondent, claiming himself to be the In-charge Chief Marshal and compelling the petitioner to address him as such in her application for leave, as wholly illegal, arbitrary and whimsical and she has consequently prayed for direction upon the respondents to take suitable action against the respondent No.6 for wrongly usurping the nomenclature and power of Chief Marshal and further for his refusal to accept the leave application of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed in the cadre of Security Guard in the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly. It is alleged by her that she was maliciously confronted by one Sunil Kumar, who also was initially appointed as Security Guard, but, was promoted to the cadre of Marshal. The petitioner complained against Sunil Kumar before the Deputy Secretary and requested to take action against him. A letter of warning was issued to Sunil Kumar on 23.09.2010 and he was cautioned to be careful in future. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to the cadre of Female Assistant Marshal. The post of Chief Marshal, who is the controlling authority of the security cadre, was vacant, thus, Sunil Kumar was asked to discharge the duties of Chief Marshal. The petitioner claims that she filed an application for leaving addressing said Sunil Kumar. The petitioner claims that Sunil Kumar refused to receive the said application. Thereafter she directly handed over the leave application to the In-charge Secretary. It is the case of the petitioner that Sunil Kumar insisted that he should be addressed as I.C. Chief Marshal to which the petitioner opposed and sought for notification of his appointment as such. The petitioner claims that Sunil Kumar refused to receive the said application. Thereafter she directly handed over the leave application to the In-charge Secretary. It is the case of the petitioner that Sunil Kumar insisted that he should be addressed as I.C. Chief Marshal to which the petitioner opposed and sought for notification of his appointment as such. It is the case of the petitioner that because of such grudge, Sunil Kumar mastered some of his followers and got a complaint signed by 18 persons alleging misconduct and omissions against this petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.10.2017 asking the petitioner to explain why she has made application for leave directly to the In-charge Secretary instead of In-charge Marshal. The petitioner also filed an application before the Chairman, Judicial Enquiry Commission, Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, requesting for appropriate enquiry in the matter. The said application was forwarded to the Secretary (Establishment) of the Legislative Assembly. The petitioner also filed a reply to the show cause reiterating her stand. Vide impugned notification dated 14.12.2017, an enquiry was initiated on the complaint made by Sunil Kumar and 18 others. A three men committee was constituted, which is at Annexure 10 of the writ petition. This constitution of committee and setting up of enquiry is under challenge in this writ application. The petitioner claimed that she appeared before the Committee, but, to her utter surprise, she found that the senior-most member of the enquiry committee, who was acting as convenor, was favouring Sunil Kumar for which she also raised objection. It is the case of the petitioner that in utter disregard of the provisions of law and in disregard to the doctrine of fairness, the Committee continued enquiry and she was forced to sign the minutes of the meeting dated 15.01.2018, which she refused. This minutes is also under challenge by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that the entire proceeding is bad and is against the law. She submits that the proceeding was conducted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. She prays that entire enquiry process should be quashed. 3. The respondents-Vidhan Sabha appeared and filed counter affidavit. In their counter affidavit, they submitted that a committee was constituted to look into the matter arising out of respective applications filed by the petitioner and Sunil Kumar. She prays that entire enquiry process should be quashed. 3. The respondents-Vidhan Sabha appeared and filed counter affidavit. In their counter affidavit, they submitted that a committee was constituted to look into the matter arising out of respective applications filed by the petitioner and Sunil Kumar. They submitted that to look into the allegations and counter allegations, the enquiry committee was constituted. Both Sunil Kumar and petitioner was summoned to appear before the committee. The personnel of Marshal section was also summoned before the committee for evidence. Further, some officers of the Establishment Section were also summoned by the Committee. It stated that opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and all the 18 persons, who had complained against the petitioner were cross-examined. The Committee requested the petitioner to put a signature on the statement, but she refused. In the counter affidavit, it has been specifically mentioned that the penalty of censure which was imposed upon the petitioner was not related with the committee, rather it was a different matter and punishment was for other charges and the said punishment was not in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. From the records and from the prayer, it is clear that the petitioner has prayed for quashing Annexure 10, which is a notification No.3228 dated 14.02.2017 (Annexure 10) whereby the Committee was constituted to conduct an enquiry on the allegation levelled by 18 security personnel against the petitioner. Further, a prayer has been made to quash minutes of meeting dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure 12). A prayer has been made that the petitioner should not be forced to address Sunil Kumar as In-charge Chief Marshal. From the records, I find that Sunil Kumar and 18 others have levelled allegations against the petitioner. As per the petitioner, herself, she also complained against Sunil Kumar. Since there was complain by both the sides, respondents issued Annexure 10, i.e., notification dated 14.07.2017 (impugned herein). If the said notification is read, one can understand that an enquiry committee was set up to enquire into the complains made by both the sides. What is the real fact needed to be culled out and for that purpose a committee was constituted. 5. If the said notification is read, one can understand that an enquiry committee was set up to enquire into the complains made by both the sides. What is the real fact needed to be culled out and for that purpose a committee was constituted. 5. Since the respondents had taken cognizance of both the complains, they had formed a committee to enquire into the genuinity of complains made by both the sides. I find no illegality in constituting the committee by the respondents for looking into the complains made by the petitioner and others against each other. 6. Annexure 12 is mere minutes of meeting of the committee, which the petitioner claims as bias. After going through Annexure 12, I find that it is not the decision of the Committee. It is merely minutes, or rather the proceedings of the meeting of the committee. This proceeding has not culminated into any final decision. Since no final decision has been arrived at in Annexure 12, I hold that the same need not be quashed. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by Annexure 12. 7. In view of what has been held above, I am not inclined to entertain this writ application. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.