S.K.SINGH, J - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nripendra Mishra, advocate appearing for the respondents.
(2.) Challenge before this Court is the show-cause notice dated November 20, 2002 (annexure No. 23 to the writ petition) by which the petitioner has been intimated about the proposed punishment and he has been called upon to place his version either by appearing in person or through his representative.
(3.) Ground as has been taken in writ petition and as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner against show-cause notice appears to be several i. e. (i) delay in starting proceedings which leads to (sic) violation of the principles of natural justice; (ii) charge-sheet was issued under the old regulations but the impugned show-cause notice has been issued under the new regulation; (iii) proceedings against the petitioner are mala fide; (iv) the charges against the petitioner are frivolous and they are not proved; and (v) other employees I facing same charges have been exonerated and they have been finally reinstated. In support of the submission that in the event the disciplinary proceedings have been started after much delay that is vitiated on that ground itself, reliance > has been placed on decision given in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and another, AIR 1990 SC 1308 : 1990 Supp SCC 738 : 1990-II-LLJ-529, Subhash Chandra Basu v. Bank of Baroda and others 1990-I-LLM48 (Cal), Binayak Datta v. State of West Bengal and others 1991 (4) SLR 647, and a decision given in the case of Arun Kumar Basu v. Union of India and another 1992 (2) SLR 715.;