Gujarat High Court
Rajendrakumar Maganbhai Patel vs Chief Engineer (Project), Madya ... on 9 October, 2018
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/15684/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15684 of 2018
==========================================================
RAJENDRAKUMAR MAGANBHAI PATEL
Versus
CHIEF ENGINEER (PROJECT), MADYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 09/10/2018
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr. Jigar Gadhvi for the petitioner.
2. The jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution is sought to be invoked by the petitioner praying to set aside show cause notice dated 8.8.2018 issued by the respondent herein.
3. It appears that the petitioner, who was serving as Deputy Engineer under the respondent electricity company, was subjected to charges regarding not properly preparing and recording of the bills on the basis of the actual work done, which according to the allegation, resulted into financial loss to the respondent company. The show cause notice reads to mention that the petitioner had committed irregularities in respect of the line works carried out for AG and Zupadpatti scheme by contractor during the tenure of the petitioner when he was serving at Kapadwanj sub-division from 1.2.2013 to 17.6.2017.
3.1 It appears that the complaint dated 18.11.2017 was received from one Khemabhai Shanabhai Patel, who pointed out the irregularities by the contractors and other persons in respect of the line works. It appears that details were formed by the electricity company comprising of Engineers Page 1 of 3 C/SCA/15684/2018 ORDER from the divisional office as well as circle office, which conducted the detailed investigation into the allegations made by the complainant. The report came to be submitted at the end of the investigation. It was followed by show cause notice impugned.
3.2 After investigation by the squads, the following was observed, as extracted from the show cause notice, "(1) During your tenure at Kapadwanj REC S/dn., Work Orders mentioned as per Exhibit-A were entrusted to contractor Shri K. A. Patel to carry out line works for AG and Zupadpatti Scheme under Mahemdabad (O&M) Division.
(2) As per the aforesaid Work Orders, line erection works for Agricultural Connection were carried out by contractor Shri K. A. Patel under supervisions of Sub Division Officer (SDO). On completion of the said line works, SDO had taken inventory and thereafter, SDO had prepared and recorded first and final bills accordingly and submitted the same to Mahemdabad (O&M) Division of which payment was made by Mahemdabad (O&M) Division to the said contractor.
(3) As per cross verification reports submitted by Teams of Engineers, deviation has been observed in terms of excess and less amount recorded in Measurement Book (M.B.) in comparison to actual work carried out at the site which is appended herewith as Exhibit-A."
4. The petitioner has been called upon by way of the impugned show cause notice to show cause stating that the primary responsibility to ensure the proper recording bills on the basis of the actual work done by the contractor was on the petitioner having regard to the service position the petitioner occupied. The petitioner is called upon to show cause within 21 days from the date of the notice. Instead of responding to the notice, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Page 2 of 3 C/SCA/15684/2018 ORDER4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the entire set of allegations are without basis. He submitted that at relevant time, the work was checked and the bills were properly prepared. It was also sought to be submitted that the responsibility required to be fixed was to be fastened on the contractor and the petitioner could not be subjected to any allegation of irregularities.
5. There is no gainsaying that the petitioner is served with only show cause notice wherein he is asked to explain about the allegations leveled against him about the commission of irregularities. The petitioner has all the avenues open to raise contentions in his defence by submitting reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner ought to have filed the reply to the show cause notice, instead rushing to this court by filling the present writ petition. All the contentions sought to be raised here, could be raised in reply to the show-cause-notice.
6. It is trite that at this stage when only show cause notice is issued, it does not determine any right of the petitioner. Issuance of show cause notice in all ordinary circumstance, like that of the case on hand, does not create any enforceable right for the recipient of the notice to approach the court. The question of granting any relief against the show cause notice does not arise since no right is violated at the stage of show cause notice. No enforceable right exists to invoke the writ remedy. The present petition since directed against the show cause notice, is premature.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J) C.M. JOSHI Page 3 of 3