1 2025:CGHC:43124 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8319 of 2025 1 - Krishna Jeevan Mishra S/o Mukta Nand Mishra Aged About 50 Years R/o Near Pani Tanki, Dasvisa, Anore, Goverdhan Chhata, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Electronics And Information Technology, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society Through Chief Executive Officer, Having Their Office At - Third Floor, State Data Centre Building, New Circuit House, Civil Lines, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 3 - Joint Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society, Third Floor, State Data Centre Building, New Circuit House, Civil Lines, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 4 - M/s Dinesh Engineers Limited Through Its Authorized Representative - Gaurav Sharma (Avp-Bd And Scm) Having Their Registered Office At - Neighbourhood Shopping Complex, Section -, Nerul (W) , Nava Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400706 5 - Ravindra Kumar Pateria (Ex-Jco(P), Chips) S/o Shri J.P. Pateria, Resident Of - Hig-1/146, C.G. Housing Board Colony, Old Borsi, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) - 491001 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Arpit Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 to 3. Fro Respondent No. 4 : : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General. Mr. R. K. Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 21/08/2025 ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.08.26 18:29:34 +0530 2 1. The Challenge in the present writ petition is to the show-cause notice dated 25-06-2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby the respondent No. 2 has sought an explanation of the petitioner within 05 working days from the date of receipt of notice, addressing the following:- 1. The circumstances and authority under which the above-referenced experience certificate was issued and handed over; 2. Your role and involvement in the preparation and delivery of the said document; 3. The reason why disciplinary and/or legal action, including filing of an FIR, should not be initiated against you for the alleged integrity lapse. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Director (OSP), BharatNet, CHIPS, Raipur. Initially, he was appointed as Operations Manager on 23-06-2021 for a period of 05 years or until the conclusion of the “Khanij Online 2.0” project, whichever is earlier. Subsequently, he was posted as Director (OSP) in the BharatNet project in the year 2023. On 04-10-2024, the petitioner was orally suspended by the Respondent Authorities on the allegation that he had unauthorizedly used the e-mail ID of the CEO. Since he was not paid one month’s salary and not permitted to enter the office premises, he filed a Writ Petition (S) No. 8248/2024 before this Court. In the said writ petition, on 17-12-2024, this Court directed the Respondent Authorities to release the subsistence allowance in favour of the petitioner. After the order passed by this Court in W.P.S. No. 8248/2024, the one month’s salary of the petitioner has been released after a lapse of time, and the W.P.S. No. 8248/2024 is still pending for its consideration. He would further submit that the Respondent No. 4, M/s Dinesh Engineering Limited, has also filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 1166/2025, before this Court challenging the letter dated 07-10-2024 and e-mail dated 08-10-2024, for a direction to issue fresh experience certificate with respect to work done by M/s Tata Projects Limited Consortium, and also for 3 restraining the Respondent No. 6, BSNL, from forfeiting the surety amount of Rs. 60 Lakhs deposited by him in the tender issued by the BSNL. By the said letter dated 07-10-2024 and e-mail dated 08-10-2024, the CHIPS has denied the issuance of an experience certificate to M/s Dinesh Engineering Limited, whereas the claim of M/s Dinesh Engineering Limited is that it had actually and successfully executed the work as per the respective tenders issued by the CHIPS. It is also submitted by him that in the reply filed by the Respondent Authorities, in W.P.C. No. 1166/2025, they admitted that on 28- 10-2023, the certificate was issued to M/s Dinesh Engineering Limited and due to internal access at the office of CHIPS, the e-mail might have been hacked by M/s Dinesh Engineering Limited, and the verification e-mails dated 10-09-2024 and 30-09-2024 were sent without approval of the competent authority. The W.P.C. No. 1166/2025 is disposed of on 03-03-2025 with liberty to the Respondent Authorities to amend the communication dated 07- 10-2024 after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner (present Respondent No. 4). It is further submitted that on 10-03-2025, the CHIPS issued a letter to BSNL that the certificate issued on 19-02-2024 and 22-02-2024 were issued without approval of the competent authorities and thereby the CHIPS gave a clean chit to M/s Dinesh Engineering Limited. 3. It is also submitted that after passing of the order dated 17-12-2024 in W.P.S. No. 8248/2024, the petitioner was directed to discharge his duties at the SNOC office situated at Naya Raipur. There was an incident of a threat to the petitioner, for which he lodged a police complaint on 28-01-2025. All the official IDs of the petitioner were blocked. On 17-04-2025 and 13-05-2025, other notices have been issued to the petitioner stating that he was found to be absent from the office and sought his explanation, though he was regularly present in the office. This shows the mala fide on the part of the Respondent Authorities. The CHIPS has also made a complaint against M/s Dinesh Engineering Limited, alleging that the experience certificates dated 4 19-02-2024 and 22-02-2024 have not been issued by the CHIPS. In the background of the sequence of incidents, the impugned show cause notice dated 25-06-2025 has been issued against the petitioner, which prima facie shows the mala fide and arbitrary exercise of powers of the authorities. It is issued only to protect the mismanagement and corruption within the CHIPS, and therefore, the impugned show cause notice may be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4, Suo-moto, would submit that the present writ petition is premature as only the show cause notice is issued and explanation is sought from the petitioner. There is no mention of any premeditation of punishment in the said show cause notice. The petitioner can very well submit its reply to explain the issue. He would rely upon the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.S. No. 404 of 2024 (T. Vishnu v. South Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others), decided on 10-05-2024, whereby it is held that against the show cause notice, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. At the outset, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition for the reason that the petitioner has been issued with only a show cause notice. The petitioner has been given a chance to reply to the show-cause notice, and the respondents, in turn, are now expected to properly appreciate the reply before they proceed further with the show-cause notice. 7. It is a settled position of law that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not sit as an Administrative Appellate Body on the show-cause notice issued and decide the veracity of the contents of the show-cause notice. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr.” [1987 2 SCC 179] dealing with the scope of judicial interference in disciplinary matters was of the opinion that, “the 5 purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford an opportunity of hearing to the Government servant and once cause is shown and is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the Government servant, only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken”. Interference by the Court before that stage would be premature, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court went on holding that the High Court, in our opinion, ought not to have interfered with the show cause notice. 9. A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of “Union of India Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana”, reported in 2006 (12) SCC 28, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:- “15. 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. 16. No. doubt, in some very rare 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 wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.” 10. 10. Again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha” [2012 11 SCC 565] in paragraph 10 & 12 has held as under:- “10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or 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 any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. 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 charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court.” 6 11. In the matter of T. Vishnu (supra), the coordinate bench of this Court has held that:- 12. On the pleading of the parties, the points emerged for determination by this Court are:- (1) Whether against show cause notice, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable or not ? (2) Whether a service dispute espoused by a teacher (staff) of a private educational institution, being a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960, maintainable by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not? Point No. 1 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the show cause notice dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P/1) by which removal from service has been proposed is predetermined show cause notice to remove the petitioner, as such the writ petition is maintainable. This was vehemently objected by learned counsel for the respondents and would submit that since it is a show cause notice and it is well settled position of law that writ petition against the show cause notice is not maintainable in view of the various judgments passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. The record of the case would show that the show cause notice has been issued by the disciplinary authority of the institution and the petitioner has not raised about competency of disciplinary authority to issue a show cause notice and in view of well settled position of law that unless the competency of authority to issue show cause notice is raised normally against show cause, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Union of India & another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 has held at paragraph 13, 14 & 15 as under:- “13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet 7 or show- cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc. 14. 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. 15. 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. 12. In view of the above, reserving the right of the petitioner to give a detailed reply to the show-cause notice, Annexure P/1 dated 25-06-2025 and respondents are expected to consider the objection/explanation that the petitioner shall submit in his reply to the show-cause notice objectively before proceeding further on it. The petitioner would also be at liberty to raise the 8 objection so far as the competency and the Jurisdiction of the respondents in initiating the show-cause notice. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok