Chattisgarh High Court
Dinesh Kumar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 8276 of 2022
Dinesh Kumar Yadav Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others
05.12.2022 Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate and Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A. G. for the State.
Heard.
The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition assailing the show cause
notice dated 13.09.2022 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No. 2 - Director,
Town and Country Planning Development, New Raipur whereby the respondent
No. 2 has issued show cause notice against the petitioner stating that in pursuance
of the Enquiry report dated 25.09.2014, a decision has been taken to withhold two
increments with cumulative effect and directed to submit explanation to the said
show-cause notice within a week, otherwise, the aforesaid decision would be final.
According to counsel for the petitioner, the said show-cause notice issued
against the petitioner is with pre-meditated mind, that too, after 8 years of the
enquiry report submitted by respondent No. 4 in the departmental enquiry of the
petitioner , therefore, the same is bad in law. He placed reliance upon the
judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 5780 of
2016 decided on 24.01.2017, wherein it has been held that writ petition against the
show-cause notice is maintainable, if notice is issued with pre-meditation.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on
record.
A perusal of the order dated 24.01.2017 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 5780
of 2016 (Annexure P-7), it is quite vivid that in that case the State has filed their
reply, and after filing reply by the State, final order has been passed by which the
Coordinate bench of this Court, by which, the impugned show-cause notice has
been quashed. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner also prayed that
interim protection may be granted in favour of the petitioner.
From bare perusal of the order dated 24.01.2017 (Annexure P-7), it is quite
vivid that in that case after filing of the reply by the State, the final decision has
been taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 5780 of 2016 and
the petitioner has insisted for grant of interim relief, which is amounting to final relief
in terms of interim relief.
Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again has deprecated the practice of
granting interim relief where it amounts of final relief. The petitioner has assailed
the show-cause notice, which has been replied by the State also and it is a pre-
mature stage for granting interim relief in favour of the petitioner that to without
return filed by the State.
Supreme Court in the case of Special Director and another v. Mohd.
Ghulam Ghouse and another reported in (2004) 3 SCC 440 has deprecated that
practice of granting interim relief where it amounts to grant of final relief.
In light of the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the above referred case, I am not inclined to grant interim relief in favour of the
petitioner. Thus, I. A. No. 01/2022 stands rejected. However, the petitioner is at
liberty to move fresh application for grant of interim relief at the appropriate stage.
List this case after six weeks.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
JUDGE
amita
