Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.
The petitioner, an employee of respondent No.1 has approached this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers:
(A) Quashing and setting aside the inquiry report dated 18.12.2012 and the tentative penalty order dated 12.02.2013 imposing the penalty of removal from service.
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the respondent no. 1 may be restrained from taking any action in respect of the show cause notice dated 12.02.2013.
To grant such other further leave as may be deemed fit.
Thus, essentially, what is challenged is the second show cause notice produced at Page-48A and it was contended that in fact the second show cause notice is nothing but a declaration of punishment which is in pipeline and hearing is an empty formality.
Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the ground taken in the petition with regard to Inquiry Officer not discussing the deposition and testimony of two witnesses also would indicate that the Inquiry Report was not in accordance with law and based upon said faulty report, the Disciplinary Authority made up its mind for imposing punishment of dismissal, which is very clear from the so called show cause notice, which itself is indicating of malice in the present case. The petitioner is ready and willing to be heard by any one else than the Chairman i.e. the author of second show cause notice or else, the hearing will prove is to be an empty formality.
The Court is of the view that the petition is premature and is required to be rejected on that ground. The Court need not elaborately dwelve upon any of the submissions made at bar by the petitioner or else it may have undue interference with the process of second show cause notice and hearing. Suffice it to say that the petitioner is at liberty to take out all the grounds, which he has taken out in this petition, in reply to the show cause notice and should attempt to persuade the authority in dropping the inquiry and disciplinary proceedings. In case, if the petitioner is not successful, then, it is obviously that resultant order would have fresh cause of action for bringing him petition on that basis. The Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere at this stage and dismiss the petition only on the ground of it being premature. The Court s observation hereinabove may not in any manner be treated as helping or harming the case of the petitioner. No costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav Page 3 of 3