JUDGMENT : P. B. BAJANTHRI, J. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the State against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2016 passed in CWJC No. 723 of 2013. Respondent was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on 11.02.2009. Inquiring Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. Disciplinary authority instead of accepting or rejecting the finding of the Inquiring Officer proceeded to initiate fresh inquiry or issuance of notice for amending charge. 2. Perusal of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, it is evident that disciplinary authority has no power to amend the charge at the stage of consideration of inquiring officer's report/finding. The disciplinary authority had option of either accepting or rejecting the finding of the Inquiring Officer's report or in the event of disagreeing with the inquiring officer report or finding. In that event disciplinary authority has option of issuing of show cause notice to the concerned person to the extent of disagreeing with the inquiring officer's report or finding and he had option of remanding the matter to the inquiring authority to commence the inquiry from the defective stage and complete the process of inquiry or he/she can complete the inquiry. On the other hand, in the present case disciplinary authority proceeded to amend the charge and ordering fresh inquiry. Such procedure is not in consonance to the law for the reason that Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 do not provide for such procedure. In fact, the petitioner in para 25 and 56 of the writ petition has specifically contended that ordering fresh inquiry is bad in law. 3. In the light of these legal issues, the appellants-State have not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge dated 15.03.2016 passed in CWJC No. 7623 of 2013. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.