1. The matter is at pre-admission notice stage. Despite opportunities respondents coun­sel Mr. S.A. Naik, AAG, has not filed objections. 2. Heard. Petitioner claims to have been appointed to the post of Selection Grade Stenographer and thereafter promoted/appointed to the post of Sr. Personal Assistant, General Central Service Group-B in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200. His promotion/appointment was initially on proba­tion for a period of two years and was posted to Delhi Circle (Annexure-C and D). Petitioner joined the promotional post of Sr. Personal As­sistant. However, he received office memo No. 10-2/92-SPG dated: 14.09.1994 whereunder he was informed that in terms of the contents of the memo after verification of facts, on receipt of the complaint, his order of promotion seems to have been issued on the basis of incorrect information supplied to the competent author­ity by the concerned circle office and that the petitioner was ineligible for consideration to the post of Sr. Persoanl Assistant, as he lacked req­uisite length of service in specified grade of Stenographer in terms of the recruitment Rules. Therefore,, before any orders are issued peti­tioner was given an opportunity to place his defence against the proposed action before the authority and for the purpose he was given seven days time (annexure-F). The petitioner ag­grieved of this letter (Annexure-F) has chal­lenged it on various grounds specified in sub-paras of para 8 of the writ petition. It is seen that all the grounds are targetted towards the merits of the memo as if it is a final order of demotion of petitioner from the post of Sr. Persoanl Assistant. Petitioner claims that he fulfill the eligibility criteria and was given se­lection grade of the Stenographer on regular appointment under the orders of competent au­thority. He fulfilled the prescribed criteria for the post of Sr. Personal Assistant besides merit and suitability. The complaint allegation basis of the show cause notice are unfounded. The show cause notice has been issued without ju­risdiction. 3. The petitioners counsel conceeds that the show cause notice (annexure-F) is issued by Director Staff of Ministry of Communication Department of Posts (SPG Section) Govern­ment of India, New Delhi and this officer is com­petent to issue the show cause notice, but what the counsel complains is that though petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria and other require­ments for the post of Senior Personal Assist­ant, yet respondents are proposing to demote him. 4. 4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, even in absence of any reply form the re­spondents, the factual basis of the case, in the light of show cause notice, cannot be said to be established and undisputed. But all the same the fact remains that the impugned office memo­randum (Annexure-F) is in effect a proposal to revert petitioner to the grade of selection grade Stenographer for the reasons stated thereto, it is not an order of reversion. Rather it is a step taken as follow up to the complaint and the pro­visional factual premises arrived at by the com­petent authority in the matter, wherein the peti­tioner is given an opportunity to meet the fac­tual premises of the proposed action and to meet the allegations thereto. It is possibly for these reasons that petitioner is afforded opportunity and time to put his defence before the compe­tent authority in respect of the proposed ac­tion. Seen thus the office memorandum Annex­ure-F is an inchoate stage in the process initi­ated to revert the petitioner. The proposed action can at the most be said to be a formative opinion of the officers of the department, but cannot be said to be decision culminating in reversion of the petitioner. After the petitioner puts his defence and shows cause, it is still open to the competent authority to take action hi confirmity with the proposal or decline the pro­posed action altogether, depending on the view taken by the Government of India. As no puni­tive action has been taken in the matter, there­fore, in my view there is no present grievance against which the petitioner can approach this court for its ventilation. This writ is premature in the sence that it is open to the competent authority to accept or not to accept the proposed office memorandum. Viewed thusm, it is too early for the petition to be entertained and dediced on merits. As no punitive action has been taken against the petitioner and the office memorandum impugned in the writ petition only speaks simply of proposed reversion, there­fore, no rights of petitioner are violated. Peti­tioner has no present grievance to ventilate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the writ petition is premature and not maintainable. In result, for the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is dismissed in limini.