G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.)THE rule, that no man can be judge in his own cause, has been invoked by the petitioner who has sought relief of quashing of notice Ex. 16 dated 29/30th July, 1991, issued by the respondent No. 4 Bikram Deewan, who was holding the office of Public Relations Officer at Nayveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Jaipur. In order to decide the issues raised in the writ petition, it is proper to make a brief reference to the facts.
(2.)THE petitioner was engaged as Chowkidar by the General Manager, Nayveli lignite Corporation Limited, Jaipur on daily wages of Rs. 25/ - per day. The petitioner was posted at the Guest house of the Corporation and as per his claim, he was required to discharge the duties as Class IV servant. No written order of appointment had been issued in his favour. On 3.5.1991, the petitioner had made a complaint against the respondent No. 4. This complaint was addressed to the General Manager of the Corporation at Jaipur. In the complaint, the petitioner alleged that the respondent No. 4 is mis -behaving with him. A similar complaint, dated 30.5.1991 was made against the respondent No. 4 by six employees of the Corporation including the petitioner and in that complaint, they stated that the respondent No. 4 used to abuse and threaten the employees with dismissal from service, immediately after the petitioner had made complaint against the respondent No. 4, three notices dated 9.5.1991 were served on the petitioner. These notices have been placed on record as Exs. 4, 5 and 6. The petitioner submitted a reply to these notices on 13.5.1991. On 14.5.1991, the General Manager, Rajasthan Project of the respondent -Corporation appointed Shri S. Mohan, Officer -incharge, Nayveli Lignite Corporation, Bikaner as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer Issued notices to the petitioner and called upon him to appear before him on 15.5.1991. The petitioner made a request on 16.5.1991 with the Enquiry Officer that he may be given some time to produce his witnesses. The petitioner says that notwithstanding his request, the Enquiry Officer did not give any opportunity to him and he closed the enquiry and send his report. On 29/30th July, 1991, the respondent No. 4 issued notice Ex. 16 to the petitioner. Therein, he took note of the report of the Enquiry Officer and observed that the Enquiry Officer has found the charges to have been proved beyond doubt. By showing himself to be the Disciplinary Authority the respondent No. 4 expressed his opinion that the petitioner should be removed from service. He directed the petitioner to submit his representation to the General Manager for review.
The petitioner has alleged that the respondent No. 4 had submitted complaint against him and he had appealed as witness before the Enquiry Officer Shri S. Mohan. After having performed the role of a complainant end the prosecution witness, respondent No. 4 assumed the task of Disciplinary Authority and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him and further expressed his opinion that the petitioner deserves to be removed from service. On the basis of these facts, the petitioner has alleged that the entire proceedings have been held against him with a closed mind and the respondent No. 4 has acted with bias and malice against him. He has pleaded that the impugned notice issued by the respondent No. 4 virtually fore - closed his right to continue in service and there has been a gross and patent breach of the principles of natural Justice and therefore the impugned notice should be quashed.

(3.)THE respondents have raised preliminary objections on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, as also on the ground that the writ petition is pre -mature because it is directed against a show cause notice only. On merits, they have come out with the plea that in respect of allegations of mis -conduct, levelled against the petitioner, the officer at Bikaner was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer held the enquiry in accoreance with the principles of natural justice and since the petitioner is a daily wages employee, an officer in E -3 category, to which respondent No. 4 belongs, is competent authority to issue a notice to him. According to the respondents, the mere fact that the respondent No. 4 had lodged a complaint against the petitioner and has appeared as a witness before the Enquiry Officer, does not dis -entitle him to act as Disciplinary Authority and that, notice issued by him does not suffer from legal infirmity. According to the respondents, as a Disciplinary Authority, the respondent No. 4 is competent to issue notice and take appropriate action against the petitioner.