1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10979/2009 Moti Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER: 21.11.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. PS Bhati, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that petitioner has been served with the show cause notice which is dated 23.10.2009 and yet before that a decision has been taken to lodge FIR against the petitioner by the department. It is submitted that once the show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner then the respondents should have looked into explanation which may be submitted by the petitioner and before that they could not have proceeded to lodge FIR. Not only this, in this case,the petitioner has already submitted his explanation and that has not been rejected and, therefore, in that situation also, the respondent-department should not have proceeded to lodge FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if we look into the record of the concerned place where petitioner is working as well as the copies which have been obtained from the computer generated programme that will clear that petitioner has not embezzled any amount and there is allegation of only 2 not mentioning of entries in the relevant book and not uploading the details on the net. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on record. It appears that before taking a decision to lodge FIR, a detailed report was prepared and looking to the allegation if the department after application of mind has taken a decision to lodge FIR also in addition to take any departmental action if it is necessary and for that purpose only has issued a show cause notice then no fault can be found in the action of the department because of the reason that the offence can be investigated only by the police authorities and the misconduct of the employee can be examined by the department. For the reason that department also proceeded to inquire into the matter departmentally will not preclude the department to act firmly if necessary. Therefore, the action of the respondent of taking a decision to lodge FIR cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or is can be termed as pre-mature action. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. cpgoyal/-