Unsupported apprehension of premeditation does not justify interference with a show-cause notice.

The petitioner challenged a show-cause notice dated 31 August 2026 alleging that his initial appointment was improper because he lacked the required qualifications.

He argued that the notice repeated grounds raised in a questionnaire issued in January 2026, was motivated by his role as president of the employees’ union, and was issued without first providing documents requested on 5 September 2026.

The respondent submitted that the questionnaire had been issued to ascertain the petitioner’s qualifications, denied that the notice was premeditated, and stated that it had no objection to supplying the requested documents.

1. Whether the show-cause notice was liable to be set aside as having been issued with premeditation or a predetermined approach.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to receive the requested documents and a further opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice.

The Court considered the principle in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, that courts ordinarily should not interfere with a challenge to a show-cause notice unless it is without jurisdiction or barred by law.

The petitioner relied on J. Shri Nisha v. Special Director, Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 517, for the proposition that a show-cause notice may be challenged on the ground that it was issued with predetermination or premeditation.

The Court found that the petitioner’s belief that the notice was vindictive rested on his union position and the earlier questionnaire, but no material established that the notice had been issued with premeditation.

The respondent’s explanation—that the questionnaire sought information about the petitioner’s qualifications and the notice followed to comply with natural justice—was not displaced by evidence.

However, because the respondent agreed to provide the requested documents, the Court directed their supply and allowed the petitioner time to submit a detailed response before the respondent made its decision.

It disposed of the petition with directions that the respondent supply the documents requested in the petitioner’s application dated 5 September 2026 within seven days; that the petitioner receive a further seven days from their supply to submit a detailed response; and that the respondent thereafter pass an appropriate, reasoned order in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations.