Rajesh Kumar vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.

The petitioner who initially came to this Court, aggrieved of  the order of suspension dated 07.12.2007 and initiation of a departmental proceeding

against him, during pendency of the writ petition when suffered the penalty order dated 10.12.2010 filed an application for amendment vide, I.A.

No.363 of 2011 in W.P.(S) No.319 of 2008 which was allowed by an order dated 18.03.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed an amended

writ petition. In the meantime, hearing of this writ petition has been adjourned on as many as 30 occasions. It is stated by the learned counsel for

the petitioner that the petitioner has now superannuated from service. Â

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order of suspension dated 07.12.2007 and the show-cause notice dated 14.09.2007 as well as the penalty

order dated 10.12.2010. Â Â

Writ petition challenging a show-cause notice is normally not entertained unless, the show-cause notice has been found without jurisdiction or it is

patently illegal. In “Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayanaâ€, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28, the Supreme Court has observed as

under:

“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 petition lies when some right of any party is

infringed. A mere show-cause notice or    charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. 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.â€​ Â

It is not pleaded by the petitioner that the show-cause notice dated 14.09.2007 has been issued by an authority which has no jurisdiction to issue

notice. This show-cause notice, in my opinion, cannot be termed to be illegal and while so, challenge to the order dated 14.09.2007 fails.Â

Challenge to the order of suspension dated 07.12.2007 must also fail; there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioner. On

maintainability of the writ petition against the penalty order dated 10.12.2010, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of

appeal under the extant rules for challenging the penalty order dated 10.12.2010. This needs to be recorded that it is not the stand of the petitioner

that the penalty order is without jurisdiction or that it has been passed in the breach of rules of natural justice, so as to entertain this writ petition in-

spite of availability of efficacious remedy of appeal to the petitioner. Accordingly, challenge to the penalty order dated 10.12.2010 is held not

maintainable, however, the petitioner is granted liberty to prefer an appeal against the penalty order dated 10.12.2010, within a period of eight weeks, if

so advised.Â

The writ petition stands dismissed.