C.W.P. No.7724 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.7724 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 21, 2009 Bikram Singh Yadav .....PETITIONER Versus The Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.S.K. Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of the show cause notice dated 28.12.2008 being illegal and arbitrary. In this case, when the petitioner was posted at Sonepat, he was transferred from Sonepat to Narnaul vide order dated 27.6.1995. The petitioner flouted the said order and remained willful absent from duty violating the Nigam instructions. For the said misconduct, the petitioner was charge-sheeted. The Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. The Punishing Authority did not agree with the report of the Enquiry Officer and rejected the same, and ordered for fresh enquiry to be instituted against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing CWP No.1185 of 1999. The said writ petition was allowed on the ground that the Punishing Authority did not give reasons for disagreeing with the enquiry report and quashed the order C.W.P. No.7724 of 2009 -2- of initiating the second enquiry with liberty to the Punishing Authority to proceed further from the stage of receipt of the enquiry report as per Regulations of the respondent-Nigam. After the said order, the Punishing Authority passed the fresh order disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer while giving the reasons and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the proposed action may not be taken against him. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition on the ground that the show cause notice is non-speaking one as the Punishing Authority has virtually not given any reasons to differ with the enquiry report. The disciplinary proceedings against the government employee comes to an end when he retires and after his retirement now he cannot be punished. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage since only a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner can file reply to the show cause notice and if any adverse order is passed against him, he will be at liberty to challenge the said order in accordance with law. Dismissed. May 21, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE