A writ petition challenging a show-cause notice is generally not maintainable unless issued without jurisdiction. Proposing a specific penalty in a show-cause notice is permissible if the governing service regulations specifically provide for the communication of a provisional conclusion regarding the penalty.

COMMON ORDER:

Both these writ petitions challenge respective enquiry reports followed by show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority proposing punishment of removal from service to be illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the same.

Since facts leading to filing of these two writ petitions are more or less similar and common submissions have been made, the same are disposed of by common order.

(a) Petitioners claim to be appointed as lower division clerks with respondent Corporation. Their appointments were made in pursuance to implementation of scheme under B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. The said scheme envisaged that persons who have worked with any of the contractors’ executing works for the Corporation before the cut-off date of 18.05.1997 were made eligible to be appointed as LDCs. Accordingly, in pursuance to notification dated 22.09.2000, the selections were undertaken and petitioners came to be selected. Subsequently, the respondents have issued show-cause notices dated 20.08.2005 alleging that the certificates produced by petitioners were found to be not genuine to claim eligibility in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36. Therefore, petitioners were called upon to submit explanation as to why they should not be removed from service.

(b) Assailing the same, petitioners preferred W.P. No.19361 of 2005 and this Court by orders dated 01.09.2025 inter alia directing that the notice dated 20.08.2005 to be treated as charge sheet and in turn, the petitioners to submit explanation to the same and the respondent thereafter to conduct departmental enquiry before inflicting any punishment much less that of removal from service and that the said procedure to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

(c) In pursuance to the said directions, the 3rd respondent stated to have been appointed as Enquiry Officer in terms of Regulation 10(2)(a) of APSEB Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations . After enquiry, he stated to have submitted enquiry report to the disciplinary authority i.e., 2nd respondent, who in turn issued show-cause notice, dated 21.07.2009, annexing the report and called upon petitioners to submit explanation to the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. In both these writ petitions, the enquiry report even dated 27.07.2006 was furnished to respective petitioners along with show-cause notices, even dated 21.07.2009, which are under challenge in these writ petitions.

(d) Initially, this Court has passed interim orders dated 06.08.2009 directing respondents to continue the petitioners in service without reference to the impugned enquiry report and show-cause notices, for a period of three weeks. The said order, however, was not extended later. Immediately, the respondents have filed counter-affidavits in both these writ petitions, which are on same lines opposing the writ petitions, along with application to vacate the interim orders.

(e) Despite the interim orders not being in force after the initial three weeks, neither petitioners submitted explanation to the show-cause notices nor the disciplinary proceedings were continued with and got concluded. However, the 2nd respondent has issued memo dated 17.01.2026 calling upon petitioners to submit explanation enabling to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. The said proceedings eventually came to be suspended by this Court by interim order dated 03.01.2026 in I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2026.

Heard Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Ms.Kothapalli Aishwarya Chowdary, learned counsel, representing Sri V.V.Satish, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for petitioners has raised following three contentions:

a) that enquiry officer himself has issued charge memo, which is in violation of Regulation 10(2) of APSEB Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations , therefore, there is clear jurisdictional error in proceeding with disci