THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 33872 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing defer show cause notice proceedings No.X/P.227/Appeal/BBN/2011, dated 02.12.2011, with regard to charge No.1, when the 2nd respondent disciplinary authority agrees with the findings of the enquiry officer in toto, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, and 16 of the Constitution of India, apart from Rule 154.5 of RPF Rules, 1987 and consequently quash the said show cause notice. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Railways. The brief facts of the case are: The petitioner was appointed as Constable in the respondent Railways in 1977 and presently working as RPF Inspector and posted at Raichur. On 30.12.2009, the 2nd respondent issued charge sheet under Rule 153 of RPF Rules, 1987, alleging misconduct. The 2nd respondent nominated an enquiry officer, who conducted enquiry and submitted report to the effect that 1st charge was not proved, but the 2nd charge was proved. Basing on the report, and following due procedure, vide proceedings dated 05.08.2011, the Divisional Security Commissioner/RPF, Guntakal, imposed punishment by reducing the pay of the petitioner to the minimum i.e. from Rs.21,300/- to Rs.16,690/- for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority on 01.09.2011. The appellate authority issued Show cause notice dated 02.12.2011, asking the petitioner as to why the penalty should not be enhanced and, gave him 15 days time to submit his explanation. Questioning the letter issued by the appellate authority, this petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the enquiry officer held that charge No.1 is not proved and only charge No.2 is proved, based on which the disciplinary authority imposed punishment, the appellate authority cannot say that both the charges are proved and seek to enhance the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. He submits that the appellate authority can either dismiss or allow the appeal, but cannot enhance the punishment, and hence the show cause notice is illegal and contrary to the relevant RPF rules. He relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India and Another v. M/s Brij Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. and Others[1], wherein the apex Court held: “It was urged that the High Court was not justified in quashing the show-cause notice and issuing the directions for paying the subsidy without giving an opportunity to the department to verify if the respondents had in fact complied with Control Order. True, the High Court should normally not interfere at the stage of show-cause notice. But where, from the facts it is apparent that there was no material available with the department to doubt the statement on behalf of the respondents and their own officers at every point of time had issued the certificate the correctness of which could not be disputed or doubted except by raising unfounded suspicion or drawing on imagination it would be failing to exercise jurisdiction if the Court does not discharge its constitutional obligation of protecting the manufacturers who, as is apparent from the counter-affidavit filed in this Court and the various letters issued from different authorities are in perilous condition as they are not able to meet their liabilities to pay to financial institutions and various other authorities and are facing proceedings on various counts and have virtually closed their unit. We are pained to say that the authorities did not realize either the purpose of granting subsidy or the harassment to which the manufacturers have been exposed. Entire litigation appears to be a sad plight for those who have set up small scale units in the hope that they will stand on their own on the subsidy given by the Government as admittedly the price of manufacturing fertilizers is much more than the price fixed by the Government for which it assured to pay subsidy. In the circumstances the High Court did not commit any error in quashing the show-cause notice issued by the appellants and issuing the directions to pay the subsidy.” On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Railways submits that the impugned proceedings is only a show cause notice issued by the competent authority and, instead of submitting explanation, the petitioner approached this Court questioning the show cause notice, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioner can submit his explanation to the show cause notice and the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law. When the show cause notice is issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within a stipulated period, it is always open to him to raise relevant pleas, including that of jurisdiction. Admittedly, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of reduction of pay, aggrieved by which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority as per provisions. The appellate authority issued the impugned show cause notice asking him to state as to why the punishment should not be enhanced, and gave him 15 days time to submit his explanation. It was also mentioned in the impugned show cause notice that in the event of his failure to submit any representation within the stipulated period, it will be presumed that he has no representation to make and appropriate orders would be issued. The impugned letter is in the nature of show cause notice and it enables the petitioner to make a representation. Hence, without going into merits, this petition is dismissed. However, at the request of the petitioner’s counsel, the respondents are directed to provide the petitioner 15 days more time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for submitting his explanation to the impugned notice. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 28th December, 2011 Note: C.C. in 3 days B/o KSM [1] (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 564