D.S. Sinha, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner is facing a departmental enquiry. Enquiry Officer has completed the enquiry and submitted his report to the appointing authority. The appointing authority is yet to pass final orders on the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer. The contention of Order R.G. Padia, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and any order which is likely to be passed on the basis of such enquiry would be illegal. Further allegation of Dr. Padia is that not only that the enquiry was conducted in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice the appointing authority is also biased against the Petitioner and he shall, in every likelihood, pass orders adverse to the interest of the Petitioner. He should, therefore, be prohibited by a writ of prohibition from passing any order in the matter. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted. No writ of prohibition can be issued restraining the authority from passing an order where, in law, he has jurisdiction to pass such order. The learned Counsel contends that whenever there is violation of principles of natural justice a writ of prohibition can be issued restraining the relevant authority from passing final orders. We do not find any substance in this contention. If any order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice that would be void and open to challenge and correction by means of a writ of certiorari. As and when any order adverse to the interest of the Petitioner is passed by the appointing authority in contravention of the principles of natural justice, the Petitioner shall be at liberty challenge the same. This petition is, in our opinion, pre -mature and is, therefore, rejected summarily.;