1. Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Pathak, Advocate, for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. The writ petition is directed only against show cause notice dated 05.03.2004. However, when questioned, learned counsel for petitioner could not show that it is wholly without jurisdiction and in that view of the matter, writ petition only against show cause notice is not maintainable.
3. In State of U.P. Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma (1987) 2 SCC 179 it was held that writ petition against show cause notice is not maintainable. Court said:
"The High Court was not justified in quashing the show cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a government servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the government servant and only thereafter a final 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."
4. In Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh (1996) 1 SCC 327 it was held:
"... for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a show-cause notice ... it should be shown that the authority has no power or jurisdiction, to enter upon the enquiry in question. In all other cases, it is only appropriate that the party should avail of the alternate remedy and show cause against the same before the authority concerned"
5. In Special Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440 Court held as under:
"This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. " (emphasis added)
6. In Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana AIR 2007 SC 906 Court after referring to State of U.P. Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma (supra), Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh (supra) and Special Director and another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another (supra) said as follows:
"It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice ... The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an 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 quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet." (emphasis added)
7. Exposition of law spelt out from the above discussion is that ordinarily under Article 226 of Constitution, Court should not interfere with a show-cause notice but where show cause notice is challenged on the ground that it is without jurisdiction or barred by law or suffers from any patent illegality, Court is bound to examine these aspects and if finds such challenge to be sustainable, to interfere with such show-cause notice which is without jurisdiction or beyond parameters of law. Court can also interfere with a show cause notice under Article 226 if it is vague, devoid of particulars, incapable of effective reply for the reason that such a show cause notice cannot be a proper show cause notice as the person supposed to give reply would not be in a position to understand as to what he has to reply and in absence thereof it cannot be said that show cause notice answers and satisfies the requirement of compliance of natural justice. None of these conditions are available in the case in hand and petitioner, therefore, has remedy to show cause and no interference in writ jurisdiction at this stage is called for.
8. More so, in the present cases, the lack of jurisdiction of respondents is not the issue. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere.
9. The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed.
Dt. 24.01.2019 PS