Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Pathak, Advocate, for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
(2.) The writ petition is directed only against show cause notice dated 05.03.2004. However, when questioned, learned counsel for petitioner could not show that it is wholly without jurisdiction and in that view of the matter, writ petition only against show cause notice is not maintainable.
(3.) In State of U.P. Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma, 1987 2 SCC 179 it was held that writ petition against show cause notice is not maintainable. Court said: "The High Court was not justified in quashing the show cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a government servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the court before that stage would be premature, the High Court in our opinion ought not have interfered with the show cause notice.";