CW 1741/10 {1} In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.1741/2010 Dnatthi Singh Versus RSRTC & Ors Date of Order : 08/02/10 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Kailash Choduhary, for petitioner Petitioner while working as conductor was served with show cause notice dt. 17/12/2009 (Ann.3) alongwith inquiry reports of various charge sheets served upon him, whereby his explanation in regard to disciplinary inquiry has been called by disciplinary authority; at this stage, he has approached this Court with the grieance that notices having been served upon him is an empty formality and would not serve any purpose so as to comply with principles of natural justice and he has reasonable apprehension that respondents may inflict major penalty which may certainly result in causing prejudice to him. It appears from the record that in disciplinary inquiry initiated against petitioner, he was removed from service vide order dt.04/07/98 and because of pendency of some industrial dispute, application was filed by respondents seeking approval of its action CW 1741/10 {2} U/s 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”) and after it being rejected by Industrial Tribunal, petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dt.25/09/09 (Ann.1) while at the same time, disciplinary inquiry were initiated while being in service, and after the reports of inquiry were received, no action was taken as he was removed from service; however, he has been served with show cause notice calling for his explanation and for personal hearing on 29/01/10. No reply to show cause notice has been submitted by petitioner and what is being urged herein is only his apprehension; but this Court refrains from expressing any opinion as it may in any manner cause prejudice to him. It has not been disputed by petitioner that after inquiry on the charge sheets – reference whereof has been made, inquiry reports were served alongwith show cause notice while he has been called for his explanation and affording personal hearing to him. As regards submission about the delay having caused in process of disciplinary inquiry, it would always be open for the petitioner to submit his objections before disciplinary authority but that cannot be a ground for interference by this Court at this CW 1741/10 {3} premature stage. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner will be at liberty to avail of remedy under the law if any prejudicial order is passed in reference to show cause notice served, at appropriate stage, if so advised. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p3/ 1741CW2010Fb8DsRmdyID-33.doc