3mm BENCH @F'Ia%;‘ 2 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (S) NoM \%é /2009 PETITIONER Mukesh Thaware, S/o Late Kanhaiya Lal Taware, aged about 48 years, R/o Flat No.9, Anand Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /:,(’1) Chhattisgarh Renewable Development Authority, Through its Director, Head Office : Srirarn Nagar, Near Railway Crossing, Vidhansabha Road, Raipur (C.G.) Energy Enquiry Officer 85 Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Renewable Energy Development Authority, Regional Office, Raipur (CG) Madhya Pradesh Energy Development Corporation, Through its Managing Director, Energy Building, Shivaji Nager, ' Bhopal (M .P.) / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA W.P.[S3 NO. 413612009 others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE M CONsTITUTION OF INDIA Aggearanc : Shri P.s.Koshy, counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (07.08.2009) Heani on admission. Challenge in the. present petition is to the Show Cause Notice dated 10.7.2009 (Annexure P/ 1) issued by the respondent No. 1 by which the punishment of dismissal fmm service has been proposed upon the petitioner and he has been asked to submit his reply. Contention of counsel for the petitioner 1's that earlier also vide Show Eause Notice dated 5. was asked to submit his reply and in the said notice the punishment which was proposed was of reversion whereas 5.2009 the petitioner in the second Show Cause Notice the proposed punishment is of dismissal. He submits that the reply of earlier Show Cause Notice was given by him and after seeing the same the second Show Cause'Noh’oe has been. given to him and he apprehends that without considering his reply to the second Show Cause Notice, he may bel‘punished. I have heani counsel for the petitioner. This Court is of the View that the apprehension as shown by the petitioner has no basis because till date the petitioner has not flied his i\ O\/O rw PETITIONER Mukesh Thaware Versus RESPONDENTS Chhat‘tisgarh Renewabie Energy Development Authon'ty 0\\_ 1) reply and merely on the basis of his apprehension that his reply would not be considered by the authorities this petition cannot be entertained. The petiijoner is to first $6 reply of the seconri Show Cause Notice and then it is expected that same would be considered in accordance with law and thereafter any onier would be passed. The petition is iherefore, piemature and is hereby ‘ an Pritinker Diwaker Judge dismissed. x Sd/~ 7