Disciplinary enquiry recommendation and show-cause notice for compulsory retirement challenged after criminal acquittal; review held premature

Judicial review was sought against a disciplinary enquiry report/recommendation and a show-cause notice proposing compulsory retirement, relying inter alia on the petitioner's acquittal in a criminal case. The HC held that the impugned document was only a recommendation and that only a show-cause notice had been issued pursuant thereto; the petitioner had not yet filed a reply and no final order had been passed, rendering interference premature. The petitioner was permitted time to submit a reply, and the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to challenge any subsequent adverse final order and to raise all contentions then.

---

---

The writ petition challenged an enquiry report, a subsequent recommendation by the Upalokayukta-I, and a show-cause notice proposing penalty. The petitioner, a Meter Reader with the respondent water supply board, argued that he had been acquitted in a criminal case and therefore the recommendation and show-cause notice issued pursuant to the enquiry report were unsustainable. It was also noted that the petitioner had not yet submitted a reply to the show-cause notice and that "no further order has been passed in the matter." The Court held that the impugned recommendation "is only a recommendation," and that, based on it, only a show-cause notice had been issued. Since the disciplinary process had not culminated in any final adverse order and the petitioner had not responded to the show-cause notice, the Court found it premature to exercise writ jurisdiction, stating, "at this stage, we do not think it proper to interfere with the matter." The petition was disposed of with liberty to submit a reply within one week and with liberty to re-approach the Court if an adverse order is subsequently passed, raising all available contentions.

---