CWP(T) No. 5090/2008 30.07.2010 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. for respondents No.1 & 2 Petitioner has assailed Annexure A-2 dated 24.4.1998 and Annexure A-3 dated 28.5.1998. Petitioner was found to have misconducted himself during the course of his employment. He is alleged to have prepared and produced false and fabricated documents and also promised a Govt. job for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Annexures A-2 and A-3 are simple show cause notices asking him to show cause as to why action be not initiated against him. 2. It is orally urged that while initiating the impugned action, the respondents have in effect violated the provisions of Section 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules (Chapter XVI) as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. My attention has also been invited to the judgment delivered by this Court in Beli Ram v. State of H.P. 1981(1) SLR 264, wherein inter alia it has been held that proceedings under Section 16.38 can be initiated only after sanction of the District Magistrate is obtained. 3. It is now being orally urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no such sanction was obtained by the authorities. Whether sanction was obtained or not is not evident from the material on record. There is no pleading to the said effect also. 4. Be that as it may be, the proceedings are at the stage of show cause notice only. From the petition no case of interference is made out. It is always open for the petitioner to raise all grounds factual or legal in the reply which may be filed before the Disciplinary Authority. Petitioner may file response to the show cause notice. Petitioner’s apprehension that the respondents-authority is bent upon in adopting a vindictive attitude towards him is not well founded. 5. Any contention raised by the petitioner in the reply to be filed by him shall be considered and dealt with by the authorities strictly in accordance with law. While taking decision the authority shall also take into account the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Beli Ram (supra). The applicability of the relevant rules and more particular Rule 16.38 shall be considered and dealt with by the authorities. 6. The respondents in their reply have opposed the petition, inter alia also on the ground that petitioner’s past conduct has been unbecoming of a Govt. servant. This aspect is not subject matter of the show cause notice and obviously shall have no bearing on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. 7. A direction is issued to the respondents to decide the matter expeditiously. Petitioner may reply to the show cause notice within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. July 30, 2010 (rana)