HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (Dn/ISIONBENCH) CORAM: Hon'ble Shri S.R.Nayak, CJ Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. WRIT PETITION No, 6147 OF .,'~«1( "1. y . PETIT10NER Vereus RESPONDENTS 2. 3. 4. Munnalal Jayaswat S/oShri Thakur Prasad Jayaswal, Aged about 36 years, R/o Village & Post - Mehgai via Lakhanpur, District - Surguja (C.G.) Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry ofCommunication, Department of Post, New Delhi. The Chief Post MaSterGeneral, ChHattisgarh Circle, Raipur (C.G.) The Assistant Director (Vig) O/o Post Master Generat, Ghhattisgarh Circte, Raipur(C.G.) Superintendent of Post Offices, Raigarh Division, Raigarh Present: Mr. Prashant Jayaswal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ali Asgar; for the petitioner. Shri Gautam Bhaduri, learned Standihg Counsel for respondente/ Union of India. ORALORDER (Passed pn 7In of D^cember 2005) The follcwing Orderofthe Courtwas passed by ' S.R.Nayak.CJ The petitioner herein filed O.A; No.734/2004 before the Central Admjnistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, questioning the validity of the show-cause notice issued by the Assistant Director (Vig.) - respondent ^wis •i.L'AiSlOiSSS^-i^^SSiai -•2-- ,.* No.3, alleging that he did not disclpse the pendency of the criminal case against himwhen he applied forthe post of Vitlage Post Masteras required under the regulations. The petitioner without reptying to the said shpw- cause notice and without any justification rushed to the Tribunal fbr the relief. The Tribunal having noticed the submission of the petittoner that even on the date of the order, the criminal case registered against himwas pending and having opined that there was no justification for the petitioner to rush to the Tribunal for relief against the show-cause notice, by the order impugned in this writ petition, dismissed the O.A. Hence, this writ petition under Articles226and 227 oftheConstitutionoflndJa. 2. We have heard tearned counsel for the parties.tn this writ petition, an endorsement issued by the Station House OfRcer, Ramanuj Nagar, dated 23.11.2005 has been produced by the petitioner to show that the comptaint registered against him was withdrawn as far as back on 08-06- 1994. Apparently, this was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal nor to the notice of the Department by way of repty. There was absolutely no justification for the petitioner to rush to the Tribunal for relief without replying to the show-cause notice. if the complaint lodged against him- was withdrawn intfte year 1994 itself and the same was brought to the notice of the Department, the Department itselfwould not hav®taken further steps in that regard. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submjtted that, however, reply was subsequently filed on 04-06-2005 to the show-cause notice. In that reply also, the fact of withdrawal of the complaint is not stated. In that view of the matter, we dismiss the writ petition, hcwever, reserving the liberty to the petitionerto flte additional reply before the Department brining to its notice the withdrawal of complaint r ^sy. "-% •^: lodged against him by the order of the Government dated 08-06-1994. There shall be no orderas to costs. ^ Sd/- Ouef Justice Judge Sd/- / ' satis^^ni6otrt Judgc