Judgment :- S.P. TALUKDAR, J (1) The petitioner, by filing the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution, sought for quashing of the charge sheet dated 13th June, 2008, being Annexure-P-7 to the writ application. (2) Grievances of the petitioner may briefly be stated as follows:- The petitioner was an Inspector of Railway Protection Force of the South Eastern Railway. During the period from 1998 to 2005, he was awarded with cash reward, commendation letters and merit certificate on several occasions by the higher authorities. His name was recommended for Indian Police Medal on the occasion of the Republic Day, 2005. He was allowed the benefit of financial upgradation to the pay scale of Rs. 8,000/- Rs. 13,500/- with effect from 1.10.1999 under Assured Career Progression Scheme. There was no vigilance case nor any departmental proceeding pending against him. He also came under the zone of consideration for promotion to the rank of Assistant Security Commissioner, RPF. The controlling authority was requested for submission of confidential roll for the year ending 2005, which was required for giving him such promotion. By an order dated 24th June, 2007, the petitioner was transferred from Garden Reach under South Eastern Railway to 6 BN, R.P.S.F., Dayabasti, Delhi. The petitioner filed a writ application, being W.P. No. 11362(W) of 2007 against the said order of interzonal railway transfer dated 24.6.2007. He failed to get any order in his favour. He preferred an appeal but the learned Appellate Court did not interfere. The order of transfer was, thus, upheld. The Deputy Director, Security, Railway Board by order dated 23rd April, 2007 requested the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, South Eastern Railway to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner for violation of conduct Rules by making use of confidential documents for his personal interest. The Chief Security Commissioner sought for clarification from the concerned authority before taking any action against the writ petitioner. The concerned authority of the Railway Board did not issue any clarification nor any order was passed for initiating disciplinary proceeding. After a period of more than a year, a purported charge sheet dated 13.6.2008 was served upon the petitioner on 16.6.2008 with peculiar and absurd charges framed against him. Those were relating to incident, which occurred during his tenure as Inspector, Garden Reach under South Eastern Railway. After a period of more than a year, a purported charge sheet dated 13.6.2008 was served upon the petitioner on 16.6.2008 with peculiar and absurd charges framed against him. Those were relating to incident, which occurred during his tenure as Inspector, Garden Reach under South Eastern Railway. The disciplinary authority at the time of framing of charges announced and appointed the enquiry officer and fixed the date of enquiry with the stipulation that the enquiry would be conducted ex parte in the event of petitioners failure to attend such proceeding without giving him any opportunity to submit his reply to the purported charge sheet. The disciplinary authority, thus, sought to proceed with preconceived mind and this would clearly reflect bias on the part of such authority. Such initiation of the disciplinary proceeding is vitiated and bad in law. It violates the basic principles of fair play and natural justice. This was also in violation of the Railway Boards Circular dated 31st January, 2003. The petitioner further alleged that the Senior Commandant, 6 BN, Dayabasti, Delhi did not have the power and jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of the purported incident which occurred during his tenure at Garden Reach under South Eastern Railway. Petitioner further alleged that he was charge sheeted for getting his name recommended for grant of Indian Police Medal award in the year 2005 but the authority, who is empowered to recommend for grant of Indian Police Medal award has neither been charge sheeted nor any step has been taken against him. The petitioner could not have had any role to play in getting his name so recommended. (3) The respondent authority responded to the challenge thrown by the writ petitioner by filing such application under Article 226 of the Constitution first, on the ground that it is not maintainable and secondly, that it is premature. (4) From the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner was served with the charge sheet dated 13th June, 2008 and while issuing such Memorandum of Charge Sheet, the respondent authority nominated Sri M. N. Bhargava, Asstt. Commandant as the enquiry officer. A specific date was fixed for such enquiry. (4) From the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner was served with the charge sheet dated 13th June, 2008 and while issuing such Memorandum of Charge Sheet, the respondent authority nominated Sri M. N. Bhargava, Asstt. Commandant as the enquiry officer. A specific date was fixed for such enquiry. The petitioner was informed that if for the purpose of preparing his defence, he wished to inspect and take extracts from any official records, he should furnish a list of such records to the enquiry officer within specified time frame. The petitioner was certainly provided with statement of allegations and the charges framed on the basis of the said allegations as well as the list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charges were proposed to be sustained. Such action taken on behalf of the respondent authority had been sought to be assailed by learned Counsel Mr. Bose on the ground that initiation of a disciplinary proceeding without giving an opportunity to show cause itself is bad in law and is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that the manner in which such enquiry was sought to be conducted, appointing the enquiry officer without being satisfied with any explanation to be offered by the charged officer and without even giving proper opportunity to defend himself could not have any sound legal basis. The Articles of Charges against the writ petitioner are :- Article of Charges against Shri S. K;. Kanjilal, Inspector, RPF/SER:-Article (1) Shri S. K. Kanjilal, while working an Inspector, RPF/SER during the period from the year 2000 to 01.06.2007 managed to get his name recommended for grant of Indian Police Medal award in the year 2005 by colluding with the then DIG cum CSE/SER Shri S. Z. Samuei even though his antecedents were not good to merit his name being recommended for grant of the prestigious award. Article (2) Shri S. K. Kanjilal, the then Inspector, RPF/GRC/SER misused his position as Reader to CSC/SER by filing a writ petition No. 22815(W) of 2006 in Kolkata High Court to get stay on his transfer orders from Garden Reach to some other division of SER by unauthorisedly procuring and using an official document which had not been addressed to him. Article (3) Shri S. K. Kanjulal, the then Inspector RPF/GRC/SER unauthorisedly procured and attached a number of official documents including confidential ones which he was not supposed to be in possession of along with his writ petition No. 22815(W) of 2006 in Kolkata High Court. (5) The respondent authority, referring to the aforesaid acts, alleged that the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty, acted in a manner unbecoming of Government Servant, indulged in gross misconduct and unauthorisedly communicated official documents and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) (iii) of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. (6) Mr. Bose, in this context, submitted that the entire action taken by the respondent authority was by way of a counterblast to the writ petitioner challenging an order of transfer by filing a writ application. It appears that by communication dated 23rd April, 2007, the Deputy Director, Security, Railway Board informed the Chief Security Commissioner/RPF, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata that the competent authority had decided that DAR action may be initiated against the writ petitioner for violation of conduct rules by making use of confidential documents for his personal interest. In response to this communication, the Chief Security Commissioner by letter dated 7/9.5.2007 referred to the explanation dated 24.11.2006 submitted by the writ petitioner in that regard. In such explanation, the petitioner had mentioned about the judicial verdict of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court regarding enclosing of confidential documents in another case will not amount to official misconduct. The clarification, as sought for by the Chief Security Commissioner, was reportedly not given. Instead the departmental proceeding was initiated by way of serving the Memorandum of Charge Sheet. (7) Mr. Bose, on behalf of the writ petitioner, first referred to the fact that this Court as well as the learned Division Bench of this Court in a number of cases held that appointment of enquiry officer while issuing charge sheet by itself reflects a closed mind on the part of the respondent authority and as such, it violates the principle of natural justice. Referring to the charges brought against the writ petitioner, it was submitted on his behalf that in absence of any privilege communication, there could be nothing wrong in relying upon certain official documents and by no stretch of imagination, it could be said to be an act in violation of any rule or procedure. Referring to the charges brought against the writ petitioner, it was submitted on his behalf that in absence of any privilege communication, there could be nothing wrong in relying upon certain official documents and by no stretch of imagination, it could be said to be an act in violation of any rule or procedure. In this context, reference was made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case between S.P. Gupta and Ors. Vs. President of India and Ors., as reported in AIR 1982 SC 149 . It was submitted that the injury which would be caused to the public interest by nondisclosure of the documents in question far outweighs the injury which may, if at all, be caused to the public interest by their disclosure. As such, the documents are liable to be disclosed in response to the demand. On the other hand, Mr. Mallick, appearing as learned Counsel for the respondent authority, submitted that the entire writ application is premature and as such, is not maintainable. (8) Referring to the decision in the case between Union of Indian and Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, as reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 , Mr. Mallick submitted that it is well settled that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show cause notice. It cannot be disputed 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. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and this should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show cause notice or charge sheet. The Apex Court held that albeit, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge sheet or show cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. Before proceeding further, it is, perhaps, necessary to deal with the relevant provisions of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. Rule 153 deals with the procedure for imposing major punishments. Before proceeding further, it is, perhaps, necessary to deal with the relevant provisions of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. Rule 153 deals with the procedure for imposing major punishments. Rule 153.1 lays down that no order of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction in rank shall be passed on any enrolled member of the Force (save as mentioned in rule 161) without holding an inquiry, as far as may be in the manner provided hereinafter, in which he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action, and has been afforded a reasonable opportunity of defending himself. Rule 153.2.1 gives the disciplinary authority the power to initiate inquiry either by itself or by appointing an Inquiry Officer higher in rank to the enrolled member charged but not below the rank of Inspector, or institute a Court of Inquiry to inquire into the truth thereof, if it is of the opinion that there were grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an enrolled member of the Force. It cannot be disputed that following Rule 153.4, the disciplinary authority in the present case drew up the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge. Following Rule 153.5, the delinquent member had been served with a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge was proposed to be sustained and date was also fixed up as to the commencement of the inquiry. (9) Mr. Mallick, referring to all these legal provisions, submitted that it would not be right to hold, that too, at this nascent stage, that the disciplinary enquiry, as initiated, suffers from any illegality or impropriety. (10) While dealing with the decision of the Apex Court in the case between Union of India and Anr. Vs. Tulsiram Patel, as reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 , Mr. Mallick invited attention of the Court to the decision of the Apex Court in the case between State of Punjab Vs. V. K. Khanna and Ors., as reported in (2001) 2 SCC 330 . He submitted that the fairness in administrative action depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and there can be no straight jacket formula there for. V. K. Khanna and Ors., as reported in (2001) 2 SCC 330 . He submitted that the fairness in administrative action depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and there can be no straight jacket formula there for. As to the allegation of bias, it was submitted that mere apprehension of bias is not enough. There must be a real danger of bias. The Apex Court in the said case held that there must be cogent evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether in fact, there was a bias or a mala fide move which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. It is well settled that justifiability of the charges at the stage of initiating a disciplinary proceeding cannot possibly be dealt with by any Court pending enquiry but in the event there is an element of malice or mala fide motive involved in the matter of issue of charge sheet or the authority concerned is so biased that the enquiry would be a mere farcical show and the conclusions are well known then and in that event law Courts are otherwise justified in entertaining at the earliest stage so as to avoid the harassment and humiliation of a public official. In order to respond to the grievances of alleged denial of reasonable opportunity, Mr. Mallick relied upon the decision in the case between Sohan Lal Gupta (Dead) Through LRS and Ors. Vs. Asha Devi Gupta (Smt) and Ors., as reported in (2003) 7 SCC 492 . The Apex Court held : (11) For constituting a reasonable opportunity, the following conditions are required to be observed: 1. Each party must have notice that the hearing is to take place. 2. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to be present at the hearing, together with its advisers and witnesses. 3. Each party must have the opportunity to be present throughout the hearing. 4. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and argument in support of its own case. 5. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to test its opponents case by cross-examining his witnesses, presenting rebutting evidence and addressing oral argument. 6. The hearing must, unless the contrary is expressly agreed, be the occasion on which the parties present the whole of their evidence and argument.. 5. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to test its opponents case by cross-examining his witnesses, presenting rebutting evidence and addressing oral argument. 6. The hearing must, unless the contrary is expressly agreed, be the occasion on which the parties present the whole of their evidence and argument.. It is well settled in service jurisprudence that the Courts will only interfere with the decision of a public authority if it is outside the band of reasonableness. Professor Wade in his treatise on Administrative Law wrote : The doctrine that powers must be exercised reasonably has to be reconciled with the no less important doctrine that the Court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority which Parliament appointed to take the decision. Within the bounds of legal reasonableness is the area in which the deciding authority has genuinely free discretion. If it passes those bounds, it acts ultra vires. The Court must therefore resist the temptation to draw the bounds too tightly, merely according to its own opinion. It must strive to apply an objective standard which leaves to the deciding authority the full range of choices which the legislature is presumed to have intended. (12) So far the present case is concerned, nothing could be shown on behalf of the petitioner, which could justify striking of the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding at its root. Interestingly enough, there is reference to the fact that the petitioner was given a chance to submit an explanation and this was in regard to his submission of the confidential papers in connection with an earlier litigation. This finds clear mention in the communication made by the Chief Security Commissioner dated 7/9.5.2007. Mr. Mallick was quite justified in pointing out further that any earlier decision of this Court or that of the learned Division Bench could not be said to be a binding precedent since the aspects, as raised in connection with hearing of the present application, were not dealt with earlier. (13) It is well settled that a case is only authority for what it actually decides. (13) It is well settled that a case is only authority for what it actually decides. In Quinn V. Leathem, [1901] AC 495, Lord Halsbury observed : Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law but govern and are qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. Having regard to the factual background of the instant case, it can very well be said that there is no binding precedent, which leaves this Court with no elasticity. It may not be out of place to quote Professor T.B. Smith of Edinburgh University, who said : Why should a Court, which in the past clearly refused to be strictly bound by precedent (and has subsequently tied its own hands) not resume the earlier and more equitable practice? It is astonishing to observe the most eminent legal minds of the country reacting to the prison of precedents (of precedents which they recognize as unjust) like a child who has shut himself in a room and screams to be let out presumably by the legislature. (14) Taking about precedent Lord Denning said : If lawyers hold to their precedents too closely, forgetful of the fundamental principles of truth and justice which they should serve, they may find the whole edifice comes tumbling down about them. They will be lost in The codeless myriad of precedent. That wilderness of single instances. The common law will cease to grow. Like a coral reef it will become a structure of fossils. (15) So far the present case is concerned, I find it difficult to accept the contention made on behalf of the writ petitioner. The materials on record certainly do not substantiate the grievance that the writ petitioner has at all been denied natural justice. Moreover, the enquiry proceeding, which is under challenge is at a nascent stage. The writ petitioner will have ample opportunity to take all the points as sought to have been raised in connection with the instant writ application. The action to be finally taken by the respondent authority will also be not out of bounds of the writ petitioner. Moreover, the enquiry proceeding, which is under challenge is at a nascent stage. The writ petitioner will have ample opportunity to take all the points as sought to have been raised in connection with the instant writ application. The action to be finally taken by the respondent authority will also be not out of bounds of the writ petitioner. (16) In absence of any concrete material indicating that there had been any violation of statutory rules or the principles of natural justice, the instant writ application being W.P. No. 12941 (W) of 2008 fails and be dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Xerox certified copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as expeditiously as possible.