^ /•>' (^) IS11 'ELLANT National Federation of Teiecom Employees(B.S. N. L.) Chhattisgs.rh Circie (R.No.4906) through T.R.C. Rao District Secretary of N.F.T.E. (B.S.N.L.) Bilaspur (C.G.) Secondary S'witching Area Registered Ofrice at D/284 Tagore Nagar Raipur (C.G.) Sharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Through : Chief Managinc Director, A-601, Statesman lihi Chief General Manaaer Telecom (C.G. Tetecom Circie), BharaS Sanchar Nigam Limited, Near Secretariat G.E. Road, Raipur {,C.G.) Manager Teiephone Department (Bilaspur Telecom District) B'narat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Link Road, City Teiephone Exchange, Biiaspur (C.G.) oei;] Divisiona! Engineer, (Administratlon/Gensrai Manager Tetephone Department, Biiaspur, iharat Sanchar Nigam Limlted, Link Road, City Telephone Exchange, Bilaspur (C.G.) Present: Shri Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellanf. i1st May, The foitowing judgment of the Coyrt was passed by Learned counsel forthe appeltant is heard on admission. 2. Appeliant - National Federation of Telecom Empioyees (B.S.N.L.) Chhattisgarh Cirele has filed impugned order dated 9[" April, 2Q( No.375/2008. is wrlt a.0peal aaai 6, passed in W.P.(C) 3. The appellant/ petitioner filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: ii"7/. 7.2. 7.3. .4. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pieased to calt the entire records of the case. That, this Hon'bte Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of oertiorari .thereby quashing the impugned order dated 27.12.2007 and al! consequentisi orders and actions. That, thls Hon'bie Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus thereby directlng the respondent No.3 to immediately open and hand over the office of the petitioner union to the petltioner union. That, thls Hon'bls Court may kindiy be pieased to issue any other relief whlch may deem fit in t'ne glven facts and circumstances of the case inciuding the cost of the petitiQn." 4. The petitioner, thus in substance was seeking quashing of the order dated 27-12-2007 whereby one T.R.C. Rao, who happens to be the District Secretary of the petitioner-union was served with a show-cause notice to expiain as to why a disciplinary action be riot taken against him for submitting fabricated and forged documents. 5. Learned Single Judge on 'a thorough consaderation of the petitioner's pleadings in the writ petition and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, did not Tind any case for grant of the reiiefs soug'nt by the petitioner and, therefore, passed the impugned order dated 9 April, 2008 dismissing the appellant's writ petition. A bare perusal of the order dated 27-12-2007, impugned in the writ petition, reveals that what was sought to be quashed by the petitioner-union in the writ petition was a shovv-cause notice issued to its Secretary - T.R.C; Rao. 7. The petitioner instead of awaiting order in pursuance to the imDU.qned show-cause notice dated 27-12-2007', rushed to the Hlah Court by filing thev'/rit petition in undue 'naste. On conslderation ofthe submissions of learned counsel for the appel!3nt, we do not find any infirmity in the impLigned order passed by the learned Single Judge, which may warrant interference in this v/rit appeal. 9. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismsssed ana' is jsbu -13arab'iLaismissed summarily. Sd/. ch'<>fJustjce Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge