Judgment :- 1. The petitioner had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application No.3111 of 2000, challenging the show cause notice dated 29.02.2000. The said Original Application was transferred to the file of this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No.45664 of 2006. 2. The petitioner suffered the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, wherein the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months each. When the petitioner suffered the above said punishment imposed by the Criminal Court, on involvement of his corruption charges, the respondent having found the petitioner rendered himself quite unbecoming member of Police Force, issued a show cause notice asking to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service for his above misconduct, which came to be proved by the competent Court. 3. In a catena of judgments, it has been held by this Court as well as the Apex Court that no Court shall entertain or interfere at the stage of issuance of show cause notice. Useful reference can be had from the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Vicco Laboratories reported in 2008(2) CTC 511, wherein it is held that the interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. In the present case, even before giving any explanation, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the issuance of show cause notice. Therefore, this Court, while sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the issuance of the show cause notice. Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. However, the petitioner is given two weeks time for submitting his explanation from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.