Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had joined in the service of the second respondent bank, as a peon (Office Assistant) in the year 1985. While so, the President of the second respondent Bank, had placed the petitioner under suspension by an order, dated 21. 99, on the ground that grave charges were contemplated against him. In the said suspension order, it has been mentioned that the subsistence allowance would be paid to the petitioner as per the rules. Even though the subsistence allowance due to the petitioner had been paid by the second respondent for a period of five months, thereafter, it was stopped, without valid reasons. .3. It has been further stated that after a Special Officer had taken charge of the second respondent Bank, as the Board of Management had been superseded, he had issued a charge memo, on 211. 99, calling the petitioner to submit his explanation. The said charge memo was vague and no specific allegations had been made against the petitioner. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner had submitted his explanation, .on 12. 99, denying the allegations made against him. After the petitioner had received a notice, dated 29. 2000, in respect of the enquiry to be held with regard to the charges leveled against the petitioner, he had made an application to the Enquiry Officer bringing to his notice that the petitioner had not been paid the subsistence allowance due to him from the month of June, 1999. Due to the non-payment of subsistence allowance, the petitioner had been put to severe hardship and mental agony. However, the Enquiry Officer had proceeded with the enquiry ex-parte and he had submitted the report stating that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the impugned show cause notice had been issued calling for an explanation from the petitioner, with regard to the report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had submitted his explanation, on 11. 2001, contending that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is vitiated as no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. The petitioner had submitted his explanation, on 11. 2001, contending that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is vitiated as no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. It has been further stated that the second respondent had issued a show cause notice asking the petitioner as to why he should not be removed from service. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the relief’s as stated therein. .4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that certain serious charges were contemplated against the petitioner and therefore, he had been suspended from service by an order, dated 21. 1999, passed by the President of the second respondent Bank. Thereafter, a charge memo, dated 211. 1999, had been issued to the petitioner based on which an enquiry had been held against him following the principles of natural justice. On the representation submitted by the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer, on 29. 2000, it was held that the petitioner was attempting to prolong the disciplinary proceedings by making such representations and it is not the Enquiry Officer who was competent to decide on the issue of payment of subsistence allowance. It has been further stated by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had made no further attempts, in accordance with law, to demand the payment of subsistence allowance. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the Enquiry Officer had proceeded with the enquiry in accordance with law and by following the principles of natural justice. Since it was found by the Enquiry Officer that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved, a show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner, based on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. However, without submitting an explanation to the show cause notice, the petitioner had come before this Court by filing the present writ petition. It was also submitted that the petitioner had filed the writ petition only against a show cause notice and therefore, it is not maintainable. Further, since the impugned show cause notice, dated 211. However, without submitting an explanation to the show cause notice, the petitioner had come before this Court by filing the present writ petition. It was also submitted that the petitioner had filed the writ petition only against a show cause notice and therefore, it is not maintainable. Further, since the impugned show cause notice, dated 211. 2000, has been issued by the Special Officer of the second respondent bank, a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be maintained. 5. Relying on its earlier decisions, in Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh ( (1996) 1 SCC 327 ), Special Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse ( (2004) 3 SCC 440 ), Ulagappa Vs. Divisional Commr., Mysore ( (2001) 10 SCC 639 ) and State of U.P. Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma ( (1987) 2 SCC 179 ), the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana ( (2006) 12 SCC 28 ), had held that ordinarily no writ would lie against the charge sheet or show cause notice, since a charge sheet or show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by the person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show cause notice or after holding an enquiry, the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show cause notice or charge sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed that the said party can be said to have any grievance. Since the writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction and hence, such discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing the show cause notice or a charge sheet unless it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or otherwise wholly illegal. 6. The above said view has been endorsed by the Supreme Court with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition against the show cause notice in Siemens Ltd., Vs. 6. The above said view has been endorsed by the Supreme Court with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition against the show cause notice in Siemens Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra ( (2006) 12 SCC 33 ). 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents, it is clear that a writ petition against a show cause notice issued by the second respondent is not maintainable as held in Siemens Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra ( (2006) 12 SCC 33 ). Even though it was pointed out to the petitioner that he could have challenged the enquiry proceedings initiated against him, based on the charge memo, dated 211. 1999, he had not chosen to do so. Further, the enquiry initiated against the petitioner had been completed and the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report, dated 211. 2000. Based on the report submitted by the enquiry officer, a show cause notice, dated 211. 2000, had been issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against the petitioner based on the said report. In spite of submitting his explanation, raising all the grounds available to him, the petitioner had come before this Court by filing a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the enquiry report, as well as the show cause notice issued by the second respondent, on 211. 2000. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the decision cited supra. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.