ORDER
1. Heard Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.8.2003 passed in WPS No. 4138/2003, whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no illegality in the memorandum dated 17th July, 2003 issued by the respondents, which was sought to be quashed in the writ petition.
3. The petitioner-appellant was departmentally proceeded and after serving charge-sheet the enquiry officer submitted his report to the effect that some of the charges were partly established and some charge was fully established. On the basis of said report the respondents issued a memorandum calling-upon the appellant to file show cause why a penalty of reduction in scale of pay be not imposed on him.
4. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant, assailed the impugned memorandum mainly on the ground that in the second show cause notice the respondent authority was not justified in taking a decision with regard to proposed penalty without considering the show cause. In this connection learned counsel put heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1999 (7) SCC 739. We do not findmuch force in the submission of the learned counsel.
5. In the instant case, the enquiry officer submitted his report to the effect that some of the charges were partly proved and some charges were fully proved. It is not the case where the enquiry officer sub-, milted his report in favour of the delinquent holding that charges have not been proved. Had it been a ease, then the memorandum asking the petitioner to show cause and taking a decision of proposed penalty would have been illegal and in the teeth of the decision of the Supreme Court: aforesaid. In our view, the learned single Judge has taken a right view in holding that there is no illegality in mentioning the proposed punishment sought to be imposed while issuing the memorandum calling upon the delinquent to show cause. We, therefore, do not find any error of law and fact in the impugned order.
6. This appeal is dismissed.