^E&i ;fJ-"" .1;. trn* .^ AP^. l^lt \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.1258 OF 2001 Virendra Kumar Katailiha Versus M.P. State Warehousing Corporation & Another Post for pronouncement ofthe judgment & order on ^73-2009 Sd/- , ,, SatishK.Aga^"1 Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION N0.1258 OF 2001 Virendra Kumar Katailiha, S/o Shri S.P. Katailiha, aged about 42 years, R/o Near Bus Stand, Katghora, Tahsll Katghora, District Kora (CG). Versus 1. M.P. State Warehousing Corporation, through its Managing Director, OfRce Complex Block - A, Gautam Nagar, Bhopal (MP). 2. Shri N.L. Munia, Inquiry Officer/Manager (Tech.), M.P. State Warehousing Corporation, Cffice Complex Block - A, Gautam Nagar, Bhopal (MP). (Writ Petition under Article 226 of ttie Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Rajkamal Singh with Shri M.K. Baeg, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anand Dadariya, counsel for the respondents. JUDQMENT&ORDER (Passed on this i7'" day of March, 2009) By this peUtion, the petitioner challenges the tegality and validHy of the show cause notice dated 16-7-2(X)1 (Annexure - P/1) issued by the Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh State Warehousing CorporaUon (for short "the CorporaSon") and the enquiry report dated 25-5-2001 (Annexure - P/2) submitted by Uie Enquiry Officer-cum-Manager CTechnicaO. 2) The indisputabte facts, in nutehell, asprojected by the petitioner are that at ttie retevant time the petitioner was woridng as Junior Technical Assistant/ Branch Manager ofthe Corporation, Branch Katghora. Earlier by order dated 4-11-1997 (Annexure - P/5) a recovery of Rs.1,29.728/- was imposed upon the petitioner on account of shortage of material in the godown of the Corporation, which was challenged by fte petitioner before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.P.No.4914/1997 in which by order dated 4-12-1997 (Annexure - P/6) High Court stayed Uie order dated 4-11- 1997. According to the leamed counsel for the petitioner, the said writ petition was allowed by the 1-ligh Court. Thereafter, the respondent »!»('3 Corporation ordered tor initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner by order dated 28-10-19^ and the respondent No.2 was appointed as Enquiry Officer. In the said proceedings, the Corporation produced one witness, but the said witness has turned hostile. Even the Enquiry OfRcer has not found any of the allegations, as proved, against the petitioner. However, under the pressure of the authorities of the Corporation, because eariier the petitioner challenged the recoveiy order before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the Enquiry Officer recorded the adverse findings in the enquiry report and on the basis of the same the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Thus, this petition. 3) Shri Raj Kamal Singh with Shri M.K. Baeg, tearned counsel appearing for the petitioner woutd submit ttiat as per the norms avaitable in the "Technical & Quality Control Book of M.P. State Warehousing Corporation, Indore" the lc®sof weight in storage is altowed to the limits of 1.5% to 3.5%, whereas merely 0.6% of the loss of weight of the stored grains was alleged against the petitioner. which is well within the norms. The allegations made by the Corporation against the petttioner are not at all supported by the Corporation's witness. Shri Singh would further submit that the impugned acUon has been taken against the petitioner only on account of the fact that earlier he has challenged the recovery order issued by the Corporation, which was allowed by the 1-ligh Court of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner has not committed any mistake, even then the authorities of the Corporation are harassing him. The petitioner has submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 18-7-2001 (Annexure - P/3). 4) Per contra, Shri Anand Dadariya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents at the very outset would submit Biat the present petition is premature and the same has been filed only on the basis of apprehension. Ths Corporation has merely issued a second show cause notice, to which the pet'rtioner has submitted his reply and without awaiting any order thereon, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. Shri Dadariya would further submit that earlier writ petition i.e. W.P.No.4914/1997,which was filed bythe petitioner before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has nothing to do with the facts of e present case, because the subject matter of Vne eariier writ petition was entirely different from the facts of the present case. The inspection of ttie godown of the Corporation is made by the expert officers and after following the due procedure and the norms, the shortage ii'gi^^llll was found in the godown. The petitioner has approached ttiis Court at fte stage of second show cause notice proposing penatty of termination from senrice. The petitioner could very well agitate or question, if any, on passing ofthe final order. 5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended ttiereto. It is evident that the challenge is at the stage of submission of enquiry report and show cause notice pursuant to enquiry report. Due to pendency of the petition, no order on ttie enquiry report was passed. 6} In Chanan Singh v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab and Others1, while considering the apprehension of the petitioner that the punitive action may be taken against the petitioner in Uie disciptinary proceedings stilt pending held as under: "5. Other obstactes in the way of granting the appeltant relief were also urged before the High Court and before us, but we are not inclined to investigate them for the short reason that ttie writ petition was in any case premature. No punitive actlon has yet been taken. It is difficult to state, apart from speculation, what the outcome of the proceedings wlll be. In case the appeltant is punished, it is certainly open to him either to file an appeal as provided in the relevant rules or to take other action that he may be advlsed to resort to. .. 6. We are satisfied that, enough unto the day being the evil thereof, we need not dwell on problems which do not arise in the light of the view we take ttiat there is no present grievance of punitive ach'on whtch can beventllated in court...." 7) Further, in Mre. Kunda S. Kadam v. Dr. K.K-Soman and Others2, wherein the question of law involved was as to whether the recommendation of the Pubtic Service Commission without any proper order passed by the Municipal Corporation, can be chatlenged in a petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution, observed that the time has not arrived for the Court to adjudicate upon the merits and that the writ petition iteelf was premature as it was open to the Municipal Corporation to accept the recommendation or not to accept the recommendation. 8) In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and another3, the Supreme Court observed as under: '(1976) 3 SCC 361 2 (1980) 2 SCC 355 3 (1987) 2 SCC 179 :;hh u..,i raill "9. The High Court was not justified in quashing the show cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a govemment servant under the stafartory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the government servant must place his case before the authority concemed by showing cause and ttie courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage untess the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any auttiority of law. The purpose of Issulng show cause notlce Is to afford opporfainity of hearing to the government servant and onee cause is shown it is open to the govemment to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the government servant and only thereafter a flnal decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the court before that stage would be premature. The High Court in our opinion ought not have interfered with the show cause notice." 9) In Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana th® Supreme Court observed as under : "13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge- sheet or show-cause vide Execttfve E/wfneer. Bihar State Houang Boaid v. Ramesh t^imar Slngh, Speclal Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulsyappa v. Diwsional Commr.. Mysoie, State of U.P. v. BraAn? Datt Sharma, etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notlce or charge-sheet is that at that stage ttie writ petition may be held to be premahjre. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notices does not glve rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to any adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is qulte posslble that after consldering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concemed may drop the proceedings and/or hotd that the charfles are not established. It is well setUed that a writ petition lies when some right of any party Is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punlshmentor otherwlse adversely affecting a party is passed, ttiat ttie said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not (2006) 12 SCC 28 ^ Gowri ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause ' notice or charge-sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholty lllegal. However, ordtnarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter." 10) The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that it is well settled law that where the Enquiry Officer has not applied his mind to the evidence and hold certain charges to be proved whereas there was no evidence to support the charges or in any case where grave injusUce has been occasioned, e High Court in writ jurisdiction is justified in interference in exercise of ite power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no quarrel on the jurisdiction and power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, the cases relied on by the petitioner in support the above stated contention is not being adverted to. In the facts of the case wherein the petitioner has an opportunity to submit his reply to the show cause notice. It is neither expedient nor justified to interfere with the enquiry report at the stage where no action has been taken on the enquiry report. The petitioner has not made out a strong case wherein there should be a departure from the normal rule i.e. show cause notice pursuant to enquiry report cannot be considered when after the reply has been filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice, on the enquiry report, no order has been passed. 11) Applying the welt settled dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, 1 am of the considered view that no interference is warranted atftis stage. 12) In the result, the petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed, as being premature. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agna"1"