THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.27348 OF 2009, WRIT PETITION No.27363 OF 2009, AND WRIT PETITION No.27376 OF 2009 DATED: 21.12.2009 Between: Muggu Jemini Ganesh … Petitioner And 1. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited) Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam., and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.27348 OF 2009, WRIT PETITION No.27363 OF 2009, AND WRIT PETITION No.27376 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in all these writ petitions are working as Technicians in the 1st respondent Organisation – Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited). These writ petitions are filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the Assistant General Manager (O), Traffic of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, dated 9.11.2009, 13.11.2009 and 9.11.2009 respectively and to quash the same being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. All the petitioners claim to be the displaced persons on account of the acquisition of their land in Gopalapatnam Village for the purpose of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. It is not in dispute that they were provided employment in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant under displaced persons category on the basis of R-Cards issued by the competent authority certifying that they were displaced persons. All the petitioners have been confirmed in their respective posts after successful completion of probation and have put in considerable period of service. While so, the 2nd respondent issued Charge-sheets alleging that the petitioners have committed misconduct by giving false information in connection with their appointment and accordingly calling upon them to submit their explanation in writing as to why suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against them. It is also explained in the Charge-sheet that the very basis of their appointment as a displaced person was found to be false since the R-Cards issued in their favour were cancelled by the Special Officer (LA), Steel Plant, by order dated 11.12.1990. Aggrieved by the said disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents, these writ petitions are filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet by issuing a Writ of Certiorari. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the cancellation order dated 11.12.1990 said to have been ordered by the 3rd respondent was void ab initio since the same was without notice to the petitioners and the petitioners were not even aware of the said proceedings until the impugned charge-sheets were served on them. Consequently, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned charge-sheets issued solely on the basis of the orders of the 3rd respondent were arbitrary and illegal. It is further contended that the disciplinary proceedings sought to be initiated against the petitioners on the basis of the order passed by the 3rd respondent long back in the year 1990 are impermissible under law. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in M.V. BIJLANI v. UNION OF INDIA[1] and STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. BANI SINGH[2]. It is also contended that the impugned orders, in which the 2nd respondent has already arrived at a conclusion that their appointment is illegal, is predetermined a n d thus the proposed disciplinary proceedings being only an empty formality are liable to be set aside on that ground also. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. As could be seen, what is challenged in these writ petitions is only charge-sheet issued by the 2nd respondent in which a specific charge has been framed against the petitioners calling upon them to submit their explanation in writing as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against them. It is not the case of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent has no authority to issue such charge-sheet and to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. It is also clear that the charge framed against the petitioners is founded on a specific order passed by the competent authority and the basis upon which the disciplinary proceedings are sought to be initiated have been explained in detail in the charge-sheet. In the circumstances, it is for the petitioners to submit their explanations raising all the possible objections available on facts and law including the prejudice, if any, suffered by them on account of the alleged delay in initiation of proceedings. Since the interference by this Court at this stage is not warranted on any ground whatsoever, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 21.12.2009 gbs Note:- CC in 2 days. (B/O) KLP [1] (2006) 5 SCC 88 [2] 1990 (Supp.) SCC 738