IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.09.2009 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.6992 OF 2007 P.Muthiah ... Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Director of Agriculture Uthamapalayam Madurai District ... Respondent PRAYER: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by way of transfer of O.A.No.1430 of 2002, to call for the records of the respondent in his show-cause notice bearing No.A/753/2001 dated 19.02.2002 and quash the notice issued therein. For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondent : Mr.P.Muthu Kumar Government Advocate O R D E R The Original Application in O.A.No.1430 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") is now Writ Petition in W.P.No.6992 of 2007 before this Court. 2. Heard Mr.P.Muthu Kumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 3. The Original Application No.1430 of 2002 (W.P.No.6922 of 2007) was filed by the petitioner to quash the show-cause notice bearing No.A/753/2001 dated 19.02.2002 issued under 17(c)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in S.C.No.1/91, dated 29.05.1992 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each count. Based on the said conviction, a show-cause notice was under Rule 17(c)(1) requiring the petitioner to show-cause https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as to why he should not be removed from service and he was asked to explain the same within 21 days. 4.The learned Government Advocate submits that it is well settled that normally writ petitions are not entertained against the show-cause notice unless it is questioned on the ground of jurisdiction. Further, the learned Government Advocate submits that the show-cause notice is based on the conviction issued under Rule 17 (c)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 5. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable as the same is deserved to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar rns To The Assistant Director of Agriculture Uthamapalayam Madurai District + 1 CC to Government Pleader,SR.4759 W.P.NO.6992 of 2007 JRG(CO) EM/5.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/