* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3955/2008 RAKESH KUMAR ALLAWADI ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. S. Janani, Advocate. versus MCD & ORS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 23.05.2008 1. The petitioner has filed present writ petition for issue of direction to the respondents not to keep the recommendations of the DPC for the post of Executive Engineer in a sealed cover. 2. As per the writ petition, DPC is being held and the petitioner is not aware whether the recommendations of the DPC in the case of the petitioner will be kept in a sealed cover or not. The petitioner has not been intimated and does not have any information in this regard. 3. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature. The recommendation of the DPC is not known. There is no direction that the result of the petitioner will be kept in a sealed cover. In any case, the respondents are bound to follow the judgments of the Supreme Court including B.C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749, F.C.I. versus Abhay Ram reported in (2002) 10 SCC 455 and Union of India versus A.N. Mohanan reported in (2007) 5 SCC 425. 4. I may note here that as per the petitioner himself, statement of imputation was issued to him on 2nd April, 2008. The same has been enclosed as Annexure P-10. It is mentioned in the said statement of imputation that the petitioner has contravened Rules 3(1) (ii) (iii) and 3 (2) of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964. The petitioner submitted his reply to the statement of imputation on 17.4.2008. It will not be proper for the Court to examine merits of the statement of imputation. Presently only show cause notice has been issued and the matter is still to be decided. It is open to the petitioner to request the respondent to dispose of the statement of imputation in accordance with law, expeditiously. 5. It is, however clarified that in case the respondents do not decide statement of imputation and do not process the same, it will be open to the petitioner to approach this Court. 6. With the above observations, it is held that the writ petition is premature and is liable to be dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 23, 2008 nk