Karuna vs State Of H.P. & Others

Sureshwar Thakur, J

The writ petitioner becomes aggrieved, from, the issuance, upon, the delinquent, of, a, show cause notice, borne in Annexure AÂ6. Moreover, she

also becomes aggrieved, from, denial to the delinquent, through Annexure AÂ4, hence by the respondent concerned, for, his therethrough strivings to

seek preÂmature retirement. The anchor, of one Ramesh Chand(s), challenge hence canvassed through his daughter, is, embodied in the show cause

notice, borne in Annexure AÂ6, embodying imputation(s) therein, of, misÂconduct to the afore, of, his willfully absenting from duty, rather lacking in

tenacity. However, absence from service of the writ petitioner, is, of a prolonged duration of time, and, as a consequence thereof it had its impact,

upon, the striving(s) of the writ petitioner, to, seek preÂmature retirement, from, service, as hence, becomes visible from Annexure AÂ6, annexure

whereof is an order, declining the request, of, the delinquent, to seek preÂ​mature retirement.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since, it, becomes reflected by the disability certificate, appended as Annexure AÂ11, with the

rejoinder, filed by the writ petitioner, to the response, filed by the respondents, to the writ petition, qua, the afore Ramesh Chand being permanently

disabled, and, whereupon he becomes clothed with a statutory protection against disciplinary proceedings, becoming launched against him, thereupon,

Annexure AÂ6 being amenable, for, being set aside. However, the afore contention is not available to be made before this Court, as, the initiation, of,

disciplinary proceedings, subsequent to the issuance, of, a show cause notice, embodied in Annexure AÂ 3, are, under contemplation, or and, yet to be

launched, against the petitioner, and, till conclusion(s) thereof, against the afore, and, further there onwards, upon, any adverse order being also

rendered, against the writ petitioner, even by the Appellate Authority, only thereat, the writ petitioner would become vested with the remedy, to

recourse, the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

In nutÂshell, the recoursing by the writ petitioner, of the remedy, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for, his therethroughs, upon the

afore anvil, hence casting a challenge, upon, the show cause notice, and besides concomitantly striving, to, forestall the holding, of, an inquiry, for,

imputation(s) of misÂconduct(s) against him, is, a gross misendevour, (i) as only after his facing, the, disciplinary proceedings, through his natural

guardian, and, upon an adverse order being made by the inquiry officer, and, thereafter by the disciplinary authority, hence can ably recourse the

befitting apt alternative remedy, of, appealing thereagainst, before the statutory appellate authority. In aftermath, for all the afore reasons, the instant

writ petition, is grossly misconstituted, and, is accordingly dismissed, and, the authority concerned, is, directed to forthwith launch disciplinary

proceedings against the afor eRamesh Chand, visÂaÂvis, the articles of misÂconduct, as, may become imputed, to the delinquent concerned. The

delinquent shall also be permitted to join the disciplinary proceedings rather through his friend, and, natural guardian, and, also shall be permitted, to,

through the latter, to, make all submissions, available to him, to repel the efficacy(ies), of, the show cause notice, and, also, of, denial to him, of , his

striving(s), for, preÂ​mature retirement. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.