1 CGHC010325582026 2026:CGHC:40664 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6256 of 2026 Sabyasachi Kar S/o Dr, Sisir Kar, Aged About 55 Years R/o C/o Shri B. R. Jagtap 621, Sundar Nagar Near Ring Road, Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Relations, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur C. G. 2 - Chhattisgarh Samvaad, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Sector 19 North Block Behind ANNRVP Office, Kayabandha, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C. G. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. V. R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Jitendra Pali and Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate alongwith Mr. Amartya Bajpai, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 17/09/2026 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.09.18 17:41:41 +0530 2 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned letter/ communication dated 13.08.2026 issued by respondent No.2/ Chhattisgarh Samvaad, seeking explanation/ report from the petitioner, which has been issued with mala fide intention and pre-determination. 2. (a) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned communication dated 13.08.2026, though styled as a notice seeking explanation/report, contains serious allegations regarding the petitioner’s appointment as Publication Expert, his educational qualification, experience and the validity of the documents submitted by him at the time of appointment. He submits that the allegations are based upon matters which have already been considered in earlier proceedings and, therefore, the impugned communication reflects a pre-determined approach on the part of the respondents to question the petitioner’s continuance in service. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner has been continuously working for a considerable period of more than two decades and that certain documents relied upon in the communication were not initially supplied to him. (b) Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the impugned communication also relies upon the earlier order dated 25.01.2022, whereby the petitioner’s claim was rejected, which is already under challenge in WPS No.3302/2022. He would also contend that the respondents cannot reopen the petitioner’s appointment and service after such a long period by relying upon 3 disputed and previously considered allegations, particularly when the petitioner has already approached this Court in respect of the earlier order. On these grounds, it is submitted that the impugned communication deserves to be quashed. 3. (i) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the communication dated 13.08.2026 is merely a show-cause notice seeking explanation/clarification from the petitioner in respect of certain allegations and materials received from the Public Relations Department and the complainant concerning his appointment as Publication Expert. It is submitted that no final or adverse decision has been taken against the petitioner by the said communication. On the contrary, the petitioner has specifically been granted seven days’ time to submit his point-wise explanation in compliance with the principles of natural justice, and only thereafter would the competent authority consider the matter in accordance with law. (ii) Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has approached this Court without submitting his reply to the impugned communication and without permitting the competent authority to consider his explanation. The allegations referred to in the notice are yet to be examined in the light of the petitioner’s response, and the mere mention of such allegations, levelled by the complainant in his complaint dated 9.4.2026 (page 10 of the reply of the respondent No.2) in a show-cause notice cannot be construed as a final or pre-determined decision. He would also submit that against the show cause notice writ is not maintainable. 4 It is, therefore, submitted that the present writ petition is premature and is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. The principal question which arises for consideration is as to whether the communication dated 13.08.2026, whereby the petitioner has been called upon to submit his reply/clarification in respect of certain allegations concerning his appointment as Publication Expert, warrants interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned communication shows that the allegations levelled by the complainant in his complaint dated 9.4.2026 have simply been quoted and thereafter calls upon the petitioner to submit his point-wise explanation. The communication specifically grants seven days’ time to the petitioner to present his case and further states that, in the event of failure to submit his reply within the stipulated period, action may be taken in accordance with law. Thus, the impugned communication, in its substance and effect, is in the nature of a show-cause notice/notice seeking explanation and does not, by itself, terminate the petitioner’s service, impose any punishment or finally determine any of his civil or service rights. Thus, it cannot be said that the same has been issued with pre-determination mind. 5 7. Merely because the communication sets out the allegations against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the authority has already arrived at a final or pre-determined conclusion. The very purpose of setting out the allegations is to enable the petitioner to meet them by submitting his explanation. The assertions contained in the communication are, therefore, required to be considered in the light of the reply and material that may be placed by the petitioner before the competent authority. The contention that the impugned communication reflects a pre- meditated decision is not borne out merely from the fact that the allegations have been specifically mentioned therein. 8. It is well settled that ordinarily a writ petition against a mere show- cause notice is not maintainable, unless the notice is shown to have been issued without jurisdiction or is wholly without legal foundation. In the present case, no such jurisdictional infirmity has been demonstrated. Rather, the impugned communication affords an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his position before any further action is taken. 9. The Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Vicco Laboratories reported in (2007) 13 SCC 270, has held thus at Para No.31 :- “31. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the concerned authorities and to satisfy the concerned 6 authorities about the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the concerned authorities is the normal rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a Show cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of show cause notice. The interference at the show cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out." 10. Very recently, the aforesaid view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the matter of J. Sri Nisha vs. Special Director, Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement and Another reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 517. 11. Moreover the petitioner would be at liberty to raise, before the competent authority, all objections and factual submissions concerning his appointment, the documents relied upon, the earlier proceedings and orders, and any other material on which he seeks to place reliance. At this stage, this Court does not deem 7 it appropriate to examine the correctness of the allegations contained in the impugned communication, as the same are yet to be considered by the competent authority after receipt of the petitioner’s explanation. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition, being directed against a communication which is essentially in the nature of a show-cause notice seeking explanation and not a final or adverse order, is premature and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit his detailed reply to the impugned communication before the competent authority and the competent authority shall consider the same independently and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law and on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar