A writ petition is not ordinarily maintainable against a show-cause notice or charge-sheet issued by a public authority unless it is wholly without jurisdiction or illegal.

JUDGMENT

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

"To issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned show-cause notice No.CCI/HRD/Appt-JCP/2016, dtd. 13/12/2016 issued by the 1st respondent communicated by the 2nd respondent in its letter REF.No.CCI/WGL/HRD/2016/12429 dtd. 14/12/2016 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently setaside the impugned show-cause notice No.CCI/HRD/Appt-JCP/2016, dtd. 13/12/2016, issued by the 1st respondent and pass such other order."

2. The facts of the case are like this:

The 1st respondent has issued a notification, inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Junior Cotton Purchaser (Marketing), the petitioner herein, having all the requisite qualifications, has applied for the post of Junior Cotton Purchaser, passed the written examination as well as interview and he was selected and appointed as Junior Cotton Purchaser and as per the appointment order that one should be in probation for a period of one year from the date of his appointment/joining, which may be extended at the discretion of the Appointing Authority at any time. The General Terms and Conditions of the advertisement are that one should furnish proof of experience certificate to secure employment in pursuance of advertisement and the appointment is subject to verification of genuineness of experience certificate. On preliminary enquiry, it was found that the petitioner's experience certificate is in-genuine, therefore the Cotton Corporation has issued show cause notice, calling for explanation and the said show cause notice is impugned in the present Writ Petition, on the ground that the impugned show cause notice was issued after conducting enquiry and before conducting enquiry, he has not issued any show cause notice or has not followed due procedure of law.

3. The petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha and another v. Satish Kumar Ishwardas Gajbhiye and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 1238. on the aspect of legality of the preliminary enquiry, which amounts to pre-judge the issues by the authorities. He also relied on another judgment of this Court in the case of Boddu Rathaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal, 2022 SCC Online AP 2632. for the proposition that the termination of service would amount to stigmatic termination.

4. In similar and identical case, the Cotton Corporation of India issued show cause notices, calling upon the incumbents to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated, while alleging that they got into employment by adopting fraudulent method has secured employment by furnishing fake proof of experience certificate and on receiving explanation from the incumbents, the Cotton Corporation of India issued orders, terminating the services.

5. Assailing the validity and legal sustainability of the said orders of termination, they have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P.No.27339 of 2016. A learned Single Judge of the composite High Court has allowed the Writ Petitions by setting aside the orders of termination, on the grounds that the orders of termination attach stigma on the writ petitioners, by any stretch of imagination, the said orders cannot be construed nor can be regarded as termination simpliciter and directed to hold a regular enquiry as per the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of Cotton Corporation of India Limited, observing that it is obligatory and incumbent on the part of the authorities to hold regular enquiry before inflicting the punishment.

6. The said orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27339 of 2016 are under challenge in Writ Appeal No.912 of 2017 pr