H.M. Kumar and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

H.G. Ramesh, J.—In these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the show cause notices at Annexures-A to A9 (all dt. 5.11.2014) issued by respondent No. 3.

I have heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri S.S. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6.

Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the facts stated in the impugned show cause notices are not correct and hence, they are liable to be quashed.

Sri S.S. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 submits that this is not a fit case to warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, he relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC 906 : (2007) 112 FLR 325 : (2006) 12 SCALE 262 : (2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2007) 2 SCC(L&S) 304 : (2006) 10 SCR 257 Supp : (2007) 3 SLJ 338 and referred to the following paras therein:

"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh and others, AIR 1996 SC 691 : AIR 1995 SC 691 : (1995) 8 JT 331 : (1995) 6 SCALE 625 : (1996) 1 SCC 327 : (1995) 5 SCR 543 Supp , The Special Director and Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, AIR 2004 SC 1467 : (2004) 120 CompCas 467 : (2004) 91 ECC 299 : (2004) 112 ECR 501 : (2004) 164 ELT 141 : (2004) 1 JT 206 : (2004) 1 SCALE 330 : (2004) 3 SCC 440 : (2004) 50 SCL 93 : (2004) 2 SCR 399 : (2004) 1 UJ 744 : (2004) AIRSCW 416 : (2004) 1 Supreme 431 , Ulagappa and Others Vs. Divn. Commr. and Others, AIR 2000 SC 3603(1) : (2000) 10 JT 206 : (1999) AIRSCW 4915 , State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and Another, AIR 1987 SC 943 : (1987) 54 FLR 524 : (1987) 1 JT 571 : (1987) LabIC 689 : (1987) 1 SCALE 457 : (1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 2 SCR 444 : (1987) 2 UJ 55 etc.

The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry, the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.

Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet.

No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."

I have examined the matter in the light of the law stated by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above. I find no exceptional circumstance in the present case to warrant interference with the impugned show cause notices under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, I decline to interfere with the show cause notices impugned herein. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prays for two weeks'' time for the petitioners to reply to the impugned show cause notices. Accordingly, two weeks'' time is granted to the petitioners to reply to the show cause notices. Respondent No. 3 shall pass an appropriate order in the matter in accordance with law, expeditiously and in any event within three months from today. All contentions of both the parties are kept open to be adjudicated by respondent No. 3. In view of dismissal of the writ petitions, I.A. Nos. 1 and 2/2015 do not survive for consideration; they stand disposed of accordingly.

Petitions dismissed.