Allahabad High Court
Isharat Husain vs State Of U.P. Prin Secy Medical ... on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1327 of 2019
Petitioner :- Isharat Husain
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Prin Secy Medical Education(Ayush) Deptt. &Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned notice dated 18.12.2018 passed by respondent no.2, which is appended with the petition as Annexure - 1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was working on the post of Senior Assistant in the office of Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, District Jaunpur. It is further submitted that now the petitioner has retired.
Learned counsel has submitted that vide impugned notice dated 18.12.2018, respondent no.2 has proposed major punishment against the petitioner and directed to institute departmental proceeding against him. It is further submitted that vide the impugned notice dated 18.12.2018, fifteen days' time was given to the petitioner to submit his reply. The petitioner has submitted his detailed reply on 28.12.2018 and denied all charges which have been levelled in the impugned notice.
Learned counsel has submitted that after getting promoted on the post of Senior Clerk, the petitioner was transferred from District Gorakhpur to District Jhansi and he joined on the said post 12.12.1991 in District Jhansi, therefore, he cannot be involved in embezzlement of money with respect to financial years 1990-91, 1991-92 & 1992-93 as alleged in the impugned notice dated 18.12.2018 (supra).
Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Bani Singh and Anr. - Civil Appeal No.3048 of 1988 decided on 05.04.1990 and submitted that initiation of departmental inquiry to proceed after an inordinate delay without any satisfactory explanation cannot be allowed.
To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board - Civil Appeal No.4901 of 2005 decided on 08.08.2005 as well as a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5402 (SS) of 2017 (Dr. Ajay Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. & Anr.) decided on 24.07.2019.
Per Contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by petitioner's counsel and raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order dated 18.12.2018 is merely a show cause notice and admittedly, the petitioner has already submitted his reply. It is further submitted that just after submission of reply by the petitioner, the instant writ petition has been filed and stay order has been obtained.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the departmental proceeding has not been initiated and only a show cause notice has been given to the petitioner, therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. To support his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana - (2006) 12 SCC 28 as well as Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors. v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha - (2012) 11 SCC 565.
Learned counsel has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned notice dated 18.12.2018. The instant writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the impugned notice dated 18.12.2018 (supra), it is evident that the same is simply a show cause notice. It is settled law that ordinarily no writ lies against a show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of a person unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competent to do so. A writ lies when some right of a person is infringed. In fact, show cause notice does not infringe the right of a person. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court.
In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned notice dated 18.12.2018. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Respondents are directed to take a decision on the show cause notice dated 18.12.2018 expeditiously.
Order Date :- 15.3.2021
nishant/-
