A writ petition cannot be entertained against a mere show cause notice unless it is issued by an incompetent authority or with mala fide intent, as it does not constitute an adverse order affecting rights.

JUDGMENT

Namit Kumar, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the show cause notice dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure P-32) issued by respondent No.3-PUNSUP under Rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short 'the 1970 Rules'), on the ground that the matter relating to storage gain is sub-judice before this Court and further in the absence of any statutory rule governing the issue of storage gain to be delivered on wheat stocks and yet the respondent-Corporation has issued the said show cause notice.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has joined Respondent No.3 on 31.10.2011 and posted as Inspector Grade-I, PUNSUP Rampure, Bathinda. He has been issued show cause notice/charge-sheet dated 12.12.2023 regarding less storage gain/assured gain in wheat stocks for the crop year 2019-20 for the period pertaining from June 2016 to October 2021 at PUNSUP Storage Centre Rampure-I. He further submits that there are no storage norms for the said period for the FCI to make deductions from the bills of the Corporation and resultantly coercive recovery from the employees by initiating disciplinary proceedings against them and for filing of the charge-sheets is untenable as it have been issued in total contravention of the judgments, policies, documents and hence the charge-sheets itself are violative of the statutory provisions of the rules, regulations and policies governing the conditions of service of the petitioner and no evidence has been adduced by the Corporation on which the claims has been vested. He further submits that the matter relating to storage gain in wheat stocks and storage loss in rice stocks is sub-judice before this Court in CWP No.27725 of 2013 along with bunch of petitions, which is pending for 24.05.2024. There are no scientific norms on the basis of which charge-sheet has been issued, therefore, the action of the respondents in issuing the show cause notice dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure P-32) is totally illegal and arbitrary and the same may be quashed. He has placed reliance upon certain interim orders passed in other cases by this Court Annexures P-31 to P-31D, whereby the respondents were restrained to proceed ahead with charge-sheet/show cause notice.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as opposite counsel, who have appeared on the strength of advance notice of the petition and perused the record.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner is challenging the show cause notice dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure P-32) which has been issued under Rule 10 of the 1970 Rules, wherein it has been alleged as under :-

"Sh. Gagandeep, Inspector Grade-1, PUNSUP, Bathinda was deputed as Centre Incharge at PUNSUP Centre, Rampura-1, District Bathinda vide order Endst. No.E-1/2019/5782 dated 27.03.2019 by the District Office, PUNSUP, Bathinda for the storage of the crop year 2019- 20. Being the Centre Incharge it was his duty to undertake the preservation of the stock.

As per the report of the District Office, PUNSUP, Bathinda, the total of 228552.00.00 qtls. of Crop Year 2019-20 was stored at PUNSUP Centre Rampura-1. During which from the period of June, 2016 to October, 2021 a total of 229851.98.000 qtls. wheat was dispatched. As per the norms of the Corporation 2014.49 qtls. was required to be given as per the instructions No.Addl. M. (S) 04/12264-82 dated 26.10.04, but during the dispatch of the stock only 1551.89 qtls. of gain was delivered. In this manner, during the dispatch of a shortage of 462.60 qls. of less gain was delivered, due to which the Corporation suffered a financial loss of Rs. 13,58,146/-. He being the Centre Incharge is liable for causing this loss.

Being the Centre Charge it was the duty of Sh. Gagandeep, Inspector Grade-1, PUNSUP, Bathinda that he properly maintain the health of the stock and to deliver the gain as per the prescribed norms, but he did not d