A writ petition cannot challenge a show cause notice or charge-sheet unless issued by an incompetent authority or with mala fide intent, as they do not constitute adverse orders.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Namit Kumar, J. (Oral)

The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the Show Cause Notice Nos.4867 and 4873 dated 29.11.2022 (Annexure P-13 and P-14, respectively) and charge-sheet No.4890 dated 29.11.2022 (Annexure P-15) issued by respondent No.4, vide which the respondent - MARKFED has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are working as Senior Branch Officer, Field Officer and Superintendent Grade-II in the office of respondent No.4. They have been issued show cause notices/charge-sheet dated 29.11.2022 (Annexure P-13 to P-15) regarding negligence in maintaining good health of the stocks stored under their custody at the various complexes in respect of crop year 2018-19 to 2020-21 and thus, the quality cut has been imposed and deducted by respondent No.2 - F.C.I. upon MARKFED and petitioners have been held responsible for the same, to the tune of Rs. 3,52,055/- and Rs. 4,39,376/-, respectively. The absorption of moisture in Wheat crop is beyond the control of the employees and depends upon the storage conditions, prevailing weather, moisture contents in the weather, etc. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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-sheet is untenable as it has 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 petitioners 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 notices and charge-sheet dated 29.11.2022 (Annexures P-13 to P-15) are totally illegal and arbitrary and the same may be quashed. He has placed reliance upon the interim order passed in other case by this Court Annexure P-18, whereby the respondents were restrained to proceed ahead with the charge-sheets.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, who have caused appearance on the strength of advance notice served upon them, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the show cause notices and charge-sheet dated 29.11.2022 (Annexures P-13 to P-15) have rightly been served upon the petitioners as they have caused heavy loss to the respondent - Corporation by causing negligence in maintaining good health of the stocks stored under their custody.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The issue which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether show cause notice/charge-sheet can be challenged in a writ petition. The said issue is not res integra as it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court in various judgments that the scope of interference by this Court in the cases like the present one is very limited. Firstly, if the show cause notice/charge-sheet has been issued by the incompetent authority, other than the disciplinary authority and secondly, if it is issued due to mala fide intention of the authority concerned. The present show cause notices/charge-sheet have not been challenged on these two grounds as it is not the case of the petitioners that the show c