ORDER : K.M. THAKER, J. 1. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed for below-quoted reliefs :- “6(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction by ordering / directing the respondents to immediately issue Transport Permit to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, for transportation of Timru Leaves. (B) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction by ordering / directing the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to take immediate action against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in pursuant to the written complaint at Annexure-E.” 2. On 29.1.2019 court passed order and called the respondents to answer the petition. 3. Thereafter, in response to the order dated 29.1.2019, the respondent No.2 filed affidavit dated 8.2.2019. 4. On 19.2.2019, this court passed below-quoted order:- “Today respondent No.2 has submitted an affidavit on record of this petition. A copy of the said affidavit is served to learned advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adeshra, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would file appropriate further reply / affidavit in counter to the respondent's reply affidavit and if need be the petitioner will also appropriately amend the petition. For the said purpose he seeks time. The request by the learned advocate for the petitioner is accepted. We have also noticed that in paragraph No. 6 (B) of the petition the petitioner has prayed that the respondent nos.1 and 2 should take immediate action against the respondent nos. 3 and 4. The respondent no. 2 in his affidavit averred and stated that:- “5. Further, with regard to the allegations of corrupt practices of respondent nos. 3 and 4 and the consequent relief prayed for initiating action against them, it is submitted that the said issue cannot be agitated in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is submitted that the said relief cannot be granted in the present proceedings. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the Managing Director of the respondent No.2 has directed the Joint Managing Director to investigate the said allegations and that the same would be considered and appropriate action would be taken as per the provisions of law.” From the said averments it appears that the Joint Managing Director is instructed to investigate the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Joint Managing Director who is instructed to investigate the issue shall take into account the petitioner's complaint (Annexure-E, Page 27) and on the basis of investigation appropriate further action, as may be required / considered necessary will be taken. The respondent No. 2 shall place on record the details of the result of the investigation and action taken / proposed. The respondent no. 1 shall also look into the matter and examine the allegations and also explore possibility of appropriate proceedings in light of the allegations by the petitioner. In view of the request by learned advocate for the petitioner time is granted. S.O. to 25.2.2019.” 5. On or around 25.2.2019, the petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit dated 23.2.2019. 6. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner declared that so far as the grievance ventilated by the petitioner in paragraph 6(A) with regard to issuance of permit and the relief prayed for by the petitioner with regard to the said issue i.e. issuance of permit by the respondents, is concerned, the said grievance is satisfied and that the said grievance does not survive. 7. In view of the said statement and declaration by learned counsel for the petitioner, this court passed below-quoted order:- “At this stage, it is not in dispute that the cause to prosecute present petition, so far as the relief prayed for in paragraph No.6(A) is concerned, does not survive because the petitioner himself accepts that the authority has started issuing transportation permit. Actually the counsel for respondent No.4 submitted on strength of the document at page No.31, that as such, any permit is not required and necessary clarification by way of public notice has already been issued by the Managing Director, which shows that the grievance of the petitioner is unjustified. In view of the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it is not necessary to enter into the said controversy, inasmuch as, the petitioner also accepts that cause to prosecute the petition for the relief prayed for in paragraph No.6(A) does not survive. So far as the relief prayed for in paragraph No.6(B) is concerned, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 submitted sealed cover which, according to the learned advocate, contains the details of the steps taken by respondent No.2 until 19th February, 2019. So far as the relief prayed for in paragraph No.6(B) is concerned, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 submitted sealed cover which, according to the learned advocate, contains the details of the steps taken by respondent No.2 until 19th February, 2019. He further submitted that even subsequently further steps have been taken whereby the preliminary inquiry/investigation has commenced and depending on outcome of the preliminary inquiry, further decision for initiating regular domestic inquiry (on the basis of preliminary investigation) will be taken. The respondent No.2 shall state the said facts on affidavit. For that purpose, we grant time. Respondent No.4 also seeks time to file an affidavit. S.O. to 18th March, 2019. In the meanwhile, the cover submitted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 shall be retained with the Registrar Judicial.” 8. It is specifically recorded in the order that according to the statement and declaration by the petitioner, cause to prosecute the petition so far as the relief prayed for in paragraph 6(A) is concerned, does not survive. 9. So far as the relief prayed for in paragraph 6(B) is concerned, it is necessary to recall and note that, all that the petitioner has prayed for is that appropriate direction be issued to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take immediate action against the respondent Nos.3 and 4. 10. The respondent No.2 – Corporation is employer of respondent Nos.3 and 4. 11. Therefore, the range or scope and limit of the power which respondent No.2 can exercise is restricted to the power available to an employer against its employee under applicable Service Rules (Discipline, Conduct and Appeal Rules). 12. In this context, it is relevant to note that in its affidavit dated 8.2.2019, the respondent No.2 has declared that :- “5. Further, with regard to the allegations of corrupt practices of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the consequent relief prayed for initiating action against them, it is submitted that the said issue cannot be agitated in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is submitted that the said relief cannot be granted in the present proceedings. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the Managing Director of the Respondent No.2 has directed the Joint Managing Director to investigate the said allegations and that the same would be considered and appropriate action would be taken as per the provision of law.” 13. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the Managing Director of the Respondent No.2 has directed the Joint Managing Director to investigate the said allegations and that the same would be considered and appropriate action would be taken as per the provision of law.” 13. From the said statements by the respondent, it comes out that the respondent No.2 has issued instructions to the concerned officer to investigate into the matter about the allegations against respondent Nos.3 and 4. 14. The court passed order dated 11.3.2019, wherein the court took note of the said fact and recorded that the respondent No.2 has submitted, in sealed cover(s), the details of the steps taken by the Corporation and it is also declared that on the basis of the investigation, further course of action will be decided. 15. The said order dated 11.3.2019 is followed by order dated 18.2.2019, which reads thus:- “Today also, Mr. J.A. Adeshra, learned advocate for the petitioner declared and clarified that so far as the relief prayed in para 6(A) is concerned, such grievance for dispute does not survive. So far as the relief prayed in paragraph No.6(B) is concerned, the respondent No.2 has tendered additional affidavit dated 18th March, 2019 wherein it is declared inter alia that: “2. I state that the Respondent No.2 Corporation, pursuant to the complaints made by certain traders and in pursuance to the office Order dated 10.2.2019 issued by the Managing Director of the Respondent No.2 Corporation, had initiated Preliminary Inquiry/ Investigation into veracity of complaints against the Respondents No.3 and 4. Accordingly, Joint Managing Director was entrusted the task of Preliminary Inquiry/ Investigation. The interim Report of such Inquiry has been submitted to this Hon'ble Court, in a sealed cover on 11.03.2019. Thereafter, further report on Inquiry shall be submitted to this Hon'ble Court in a sealed cover on 18.03.2019. 3. It is stated that the Corporation shall, based on the said Preliminary Inquiry/Investigation, if required, will hold a regular departmental inquiry in accordance with the rules governing the same against the Respondents No.3 and 4.” Along with the affidavit, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has tendered another report (sealed cover) about the proceedings which have been conducted by the authority. Previous envelop and the envelop submitted today along with the affidavit, are directed to be retained in the custody of the Registrar Judicial. Previous envelop and the envelop submitted today along with the affidavit, are directed to be retained in the custody of the Registrar Judicial. Respondent No.3 seeks time to file reply. The reply shall be filed on or before 24th March, 2019. S.O. to 25th March, 2019.” 16. At this stage, it is appropriate to note that the respondent No.2 filed additional affidavit dated 18.3.2019 wherein, the respondent No.2 declared and asserted that:- “2. I state that the Respondent No.2 Corporation, pursuant to the complaints made by certain traders in pursuance to the office Order dated 10.01.2019, issued by the Managing Director of the Respondent No.2 Corporation, had initiated Preliminary Inquiry/Investigation into veracity of complaints against the Respondents No. 3 and 4. Accordingly, Joint Managing Director was entrusted the task of Preliminary Inquiry/Investigation. The interim Report of such Inquiry has been submitted to this Hon'ble Court, in a sealed cover on 11.03.2019. Thereafter, further report on Inquiry shall be submitted to this Hon'ble Court in a sealed cover on 18.03.2019. 3. It is stated that the Corporation shall, based on the said Preliminary Inquiry/Investigation, if required, will hold a regular departmental inquiry in accordance with the rules governing the same against the Respondent No. 3 and 4.” 17. From the said affidavit, it comes out that in pursuance to the directions issued by Managing Director to initiate preliminary inquiry / investigation into the veracity of complaints against respondent Nos.3 and 4, the concerned Officer commenced preliminary inquiry / investigation and statements have been recorded. Developments in the said proceedings have been placed on record in sealed cover. 18. By the said affidavit, the respondent No.2 has also declared and asserted that based on the report of the preliminary inquiry / investigation, the Corporation will take decision as regards further steps, including action of conducting regular inquiry in accordance with the applicable Rules against the respondent Nos.3 and 4. 19. The respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 have filed affidavits. 20. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 emphasized the allegations against the petitioner and he submitted that actually in view of the past incident, the petitioner has, now, raised baseless allegations. 21. 19. The respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 have filed affidavits. 20. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 emphasized the allegations against the petitioner and he submitted that actually in view of the past incident, the petitioner has, now, raised baseless allegations. 21. At this stage, it is appropriate and relevant to note that during previous proceedings, atleast on couple of occasions, we specifically asked learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has lodged complaint / FIR against the respondent Nos.3 and 4 with the Police and / or A.C.B. or other Authority. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner every time submitted that until now, the petitioner has not lodged any complaint / FIR in respect of the allegations made by the petitioner, including the allegations in the petition. 23. Today also, we again inquired from learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether as of now, the petitioner has lodged any complaint / FIR with Police or A.C.B. or any other Authority. 24. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner again submitted that the petitioner has, even as of now, not lodged any complaint / FIR with any authority. 25. Mr. Chudgar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – Corporation would submit that in such cases all that the Corporation can do is to act in accordance with Rules i.e. to inquire / investigate into the allegations after following procedure prescribed by Rules. According to Mr. Chudgar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – Corporation, the employer has limited scope of action against its employees inasmuch as the employer can act only under the Rules and it cannnot take action against its employees except in accordance with the disciplinary Rules. He submitted that on the basis of report of initial inquiry, decision about further appropriate action will be taken by the Competent Authority at the respondent No.2 – Corporation. 26. Mr. Hriday Buch, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Mr. R.D. Kinariwala, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that except the petitioner, any other person, whose names have been mentioned in the alleged complaint, have neither filed any petition nor any complaint and none of them have come forward with any grievance. Whereas the respondent No.3 has through his affidavit, placed on record the facts against the petitioner. 27. Mr. Whereas the respondent No.3 has through his affidavit, placed on record the facts against the petitioner. 27. Mr. Chudgar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, today, submitted and stated that the concerned Officers / Authority, as part of preliminary inquiry / investigation, has recorded statements of respondent Nos.3 and 4 as well as of the petitioner and also other persons (i.e. those persons, who are amongst the persons, who have put signatures on the complaint). 28. Mr. Chudgar, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 further submitted that the said preliminary inquiry / investigation has been conducted by Joint Managing Director and in ordinary course, he would have submitted the report to the Managing Director, however, since in the interregnum, Managing Director has retired and the post is yet not filled-up, there is lack of clarity with regard to further course of action and the matter is under deliberation. In the meanwhile, the said Officers / Authority would prepare the report and further cause of action will be shortly decided. 29. As rightly submitted by respondent No.2, authority of respondent No.2 to take any action against respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 and the scope of any action by respondent No.2 – Corporation against respondent Nos.3 and 4, would be limited and cannot travel beyond employer's power and authority under Service Rules. 30. In view of the fact that the Corporation, as declared (by the respondent No.2) in its two affidavits, has initiated proceedings in accordance with its Rules and also in light of the fact that the petitioner has, until now, not lodged any complaint before any authority, we would refrain from making any observation in our order with regard to the allegations by the petitioner against respondent Nos.3 and 4 and / or about the proceedings by respondent No.2 against respondent Nos.3 and 4 and / or with regard to the allegations by the respondent No.3 against the petitioner. 31. In present petition, the respondent No.2 – Corporation has placed before us that it has taken into account the grievance by the petitioner against two employees and preliminary investigation so as to determine further course of action in accordance with applicable Rules. 32. 31. In present petition, the respondent No.2 – Corporation has placed before us that it has taken into account the grievance by the petitioner against two employees and preliminary investigation so as to determine further course of action in accordance with applicable Rules. 32. In this backdrop, it is appropriate to note at this stage that so far as the relief prayed for by the petitioner in paragraph 6(B) is concerned, the respondent No.2 – Corporation has already initiated proceedings in accordance with applicable Rules and Mr. Chudgar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – Corporation has also declared that upon conclusion of the preliminary inquiry / investigation, the concerned Officer will submit his report and based on such report, course of further action will be decided. 33. On the other hand, until now, the petitioner has chosen to not lodge any complaint with Police or A.C.B. or any other Authority and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 has declared and stated that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are employees of the Corporation and they are governed by the Rules and regulations, including disciplinary and conduct Rules of the Corporation and they are not Government employees and the respondent No.1 has no administrative or other control over the employees of the respondent No.2 – Corporation. 34. In view of above-mentioned facts and details and submissions, at this stage any other or further directions cannot be passed. More particularly, when the respondent No.2 – Corporation has already initiated steps in exercise of authority available under applicable Rules and in accordance with applicable Rules. 35. During the proceedings the respondent No.2 has submitted reports about progress / proceedings of preliminary inquiry / investigation, conducted by Joint Managing Director. 36. At the relevant time, we maintained the said reports in sealed covers. However, today, we instructed the Court Master to open the sealed covers so that the reports can be considered. The said Reports dated 22.2.2019, 16.3.2019 and 5.4.2019 read thus:- “Interim Report of GSFDC Ltd. ACTION TAKEN: - Pending inquiry the additional charges pertaining to the MFP activities of all the divisions from Nirupam Jagdishchandra Vaishnav (Respondent No.3) have been withdrawn - Pending inquiry Sureshkumar Maganlal Parmar-Respo. No.4 has been divested from the activities related to Timru Leaves. The said Reports dated 22.2.2019, 16.3.2019 and 5.4.2019 read thus:- “Interim Report of GSFDC Ltd. ACTION TAKEN: - Pending inquiry the additional charges pertaining to the MFP activities of all the divisions from Nirupam Jagdishchandra Vaishnav (Respondent No.3) have been withdrawn - Pending inquiry Sureshkumar Maganlal Parmar-Respo. No.4 has been divested from the activities related to Timru Leaves. PROGRESS OF INVESTIGATION: The investigating officer has already started the inquiry and given the first hearing date on 07-02-2019 asking all 30 applicants to present before the investigating officer to give their statement. However, on the said date only 12 applicants, who have signed the application, have been remain present in group before the Investigating officer, but they came with 14 pre-scripted notarized submissions along with audio clips and other 18 applicants remained absent. By keeping in mind the Principle of natural justice, I have given the second chance of being heard on 26-02-2019 to all 16 absentee applicants. The inquiry of Nirupam Jagdishchandra Vaishnav and Sureshkumar Maganlal Parmar by the Investigating officer shall commence as soon as the remaining 16 original applicants hearing is completed. Sd/- Joint Managing Directed (Investigating officer) Place: -Vadodara Date: 22-02-2019.” “Further Interim Report After according opportunity to most of the complainants of being heard on 07-02-2019, I had issued notice to other complainants who had not remained present on 07-02-2019. Thereafter few other complainants appeared before me on 26-02-2019. Their submissions have been taken on record. Thereafter I had issued notice calling upon the concerned two officials, of our Corporation Mr. N.J. Vaishnav and Mr. S.M. Parmar to appear before me and make their submissions in response to the complaint of the Complainants. They were asked to appear before me as on 16-03-2019. Due to communications received from AG Office for attending their office in other important High Court matters as on 16-3-2019 and from the Finance Secretary, Gandhinagar to attend a meeting as on 16-3-2019. Mr. N.J. Vaishnav and Mr. S.M. Parmar shall now be called to appear before me on 25-03-2019. If any, prima facie case is found against the said two officials, then regular Departmental Inquiry will be initiated in accordance with the Rules applicable to our Corporation. (Sd/-) Joint Managing Director Place: Vadodara Date: 16-03-2019” “Further Interim Report After according opportunity to most of the complainants of being heard on various dates, the alleged two officials of the Corporation, Mr. (Sd/-) Joint Managing Director Place: Vadodara Date: 16-03-2019” “Further Interim Report After according opportunity to most of the complainants of being heard on various dates, the alleged two officials of the Corporation, Mr. N.J. Vaishnav and Mr. S.M. Parmar were called upon and appeared before me as on 25.03.2019 and they were heard. In order to make further submission by them and asking for reasonable time for the same, Mr. N.J. Vaishnav and Mr. S.M. Parmar have now been called upon to appear before me on 08-04-2019. Once the primary inquiry would be over, a report to that effect will be given to the appropriate authority. (Sd/-) Joint Managing Director Place: Vadodara Date: 05-04-2019.” 37. Co-joint reading of said reports give out that pending the said preliminary inquiry, additional charge pertaining to MFP activities are withdrawn from Mr. Vaishnav, and Mr. S.M. Parmar has been divested from the activities related to Timru Leaves. About 12 applicants / complainants remained present before the concerned officer along with pre-scripted notarised submission and audio-clips. The concerned officer has also clearly mentioned in the report that, if prima facie case is found, then regular departmental inquiry in accordance with Rules will be initiated. 38. In this view of the matter, it is appropriate to recall the relief prayed for in paragraph 6(B). The petitioner has asked for direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take action against the respondent Nos.3 and 4. The request by the petitioner, on its own motion and also in light of the fact that the relation between the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on one hand, and respondent Nos.3 and 4 on the other hand is that of the employer and employee, would fall within purview of departmental / disciplinary proceedings. As rightly claimed by learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the said respondents, as employer, cannot take, against its employees, any action other than the disciplinary action under and in accordance with applicable Rules. Therefore, so far as any action is concerned, the court cannot direct the employer to take any action which the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are, as employer, not competent to take and the court also cannot continuously supervise or monitor disciplinary action by employer against its employee. It may amount to influencing a particular action or a particular decision. 39. Therefore, so far as any action is concerned, the court cannot direct the employer to take any action which the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are, as employer, not competent to take and the court also cannot continuously supervise or monitor disciplinary action by employer against its employee. It may amount to influencing a particular action or a particular decision. 39. Under the circumstances, having regard to the relief prayed for in paragraph 6(B), we, at this stage, dispose the petition by taking note of the statement by the respondent – Corporation that after the concerned Officer (Joint Managing Director), who conducted the preliminary inquiry / investigation, submits the observation / report to the Competent Authority under the Rules, the Competent Authority will take appropriate decision – action and that if the Authority decides to take further departmental / disciplinary action in accordance with the Rules, issue appropriate directions in that regard. So far as the respondent No.1 is concerned, it has declared that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not employees of respondent No.1. Thus, said respondent – State Authority may take appropriate decision independently on its own assessment. 40. With aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of.