ORDER BY THE COURT: 1. The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Sankhala, was working as Assistant Accountant on contractual basis in the respondent Panchayati Samiti-Suwana, in Gram Panchayat-Richada, for the period 12.05.2008 to 01.03.2010. He, however, resigned from the said post and joined the services as an Accountant in the “Chhabra Power Plant Ltd.” under the appointment order (Annex.6) dated 24.02.2010. The Coordinator of the NREGA Scheme, the District Collector, Bhilwara, gave a show cause notice to the present petitioner vide Annex.2 dated 23.10.2010 to give explanation about certain irregularities committed by the petitioner while he was working as Assistant Accountant in the Panchayati Raj Department for various financial years, for which, huge Budgets were allocated for implementation of various scheme under the NREGA and the present petitioner working as Assistant Accountants failed to take proper steps for preventing cash purchases, not inspected the cash book etc. and that resulted in certain defalcations. A preliminary enquiry appears to have been made in the present case as would appear from Annex.4 of 14.05.2010 purportedly holding that the petitioner as Assistant Accountant, could not be held responsible for such irregularities as there were no standards of audits set down by that time. The Annex.4 is an Office-note prepared in the office of Zila Parishad, Bhilwara, however, it is not clear as to who has held this enquiry and what was the process of such preliminary enquiry. 2. The petitioner approached this Court when vide the Annex.5 communication dated 28.01.2011, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of E.G.S., Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Mr. Tanmay Kumar, sent the aforesaid communication to the District Collector, Bhilwara, for initiating an enquiry and action against various officials of the said Gram Panchayat, Richada in Panchayat Samiti-Suwana in connection with aforesaid works implemented under the NREGA Scheme and while directing action against various officials working in the said Gram Panchayat, including actions to be taken by converting the enquiry under Rule 17 to Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, filing of FIR(s). Vide the Para 10 and 11 of the said communication, in which para 10 pertains to the present petitioner and other para 11 pertains to one Om Prakash Bairwa, who was Programme Officer during the contemporary period in the Panchayat Samiti- Suwana, it was stated as under: - ^^10- ipka;r lfefr lqok.kk ds rRdkyhu lafonk ys[kk lgk;d Jh lqfuy dqekj lka[kyk tks orZeku es ftyk ckjka es NcM+k ikoj IykaV es ys[kkdkj gS] ds fo:) Hkh ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ djokbZ tkos ,oa lacf/kr ikoj IykaV ,oa ÅtkZ foHkkx dks Hkh Jh lqfuy dqekj ds }kjk dh xbZ vfu;ferrvks ds ckjs es Li”V i= fy[kk tkos rkfd og ogk Hkh jktdh; lsok es ugh jg lds ,oa iqu% fdlh izdkj dh vfu;ferrk djus dk mls volj izkIr u gks ldsA 11- iapk;r lfefr lqok.kk ds rRdkyhu dk;ZØe vf/kdkjh Jh vkseizdk’k cSjok tks orZeku es jkTkLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx ls fu;fer :Ik ls ftyk ifjogu vf/kdkjh ds in ij p;fur gksdj dk;Zjr gS] ds fo:) Hkh ifjogu foHkkx dks muds }kjk dh xbZ xaHkhj vfu;ferrkvks dh tkudkjh nsrs gq, Li”V i= fy[kk tkos] rkfd og ogka Hkh jktdh; lsok es ugh jg lds ,oa mUgs fdlh izdkj dh vfu;ferrk djus dk volj izkIr u gks ldsA^^ 3. Since, the petitioner by that time, had already resigned with effect from 01.03.2010 from the said Panchayat Samiti as Assistant Accountant, and was already working only on contractual basis and had joined on regular basis as Accountant under the appointment order dated 24.02.2010 of Chhabra Power Plant, wholly owned subsidiary of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpaban Nigam Ltd. ('RRVUNL', for short), a Government of Rajasthan undertaking, the petitioner felt aggrieved by the afore-quoted para 10 of the communication dated 28.01.2011, as in his opinion, it could jeopardize his service career in the said Chhabra Power Plant Ltd. also. Therefore, the present writ petition was filed on 04.03.2011 and while issuing notices to the respondents, a coordinate bench of this Court granted the following interim order on 09.03.2011: - “Issue notice as to why this petition for writ be not admitted. Issue notice of stay application also. Therefore, the present writ petition was filed on 04.03.2011 and while issuing notices to the respondents, a coordinate bench of this Court granted the following interim order on 09.03.2011: - “Issue notice as to why this petition for writ be not admitted. Issue notice of stay application also. In the meanwhile and until further orders, the respondents are restrained from dis-continuing the petitioner from the services of Chhabra Power Plant Limited Chhabra in pursuant to the instructions given under document (Annex.-5) dated 28.1.2011 issued by Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan E.G.S., Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Jaipur.” 4. The respondent-Pancahyati Raj Department has filed reply to the writ petition, inter-alia, contesting the present writ petition and the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Manish Patel, Addl. Govt. Counsel, also vehemently submitted that the present writ petition is premature and to his information, the writ petition filed by other person, namely, Om Prakash Bairwa, was also dismissed by this Court as premature. 5. Mr. Rakesh Arora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the Commissioner of the Panchayati Raj Department had no jurisdiction to send the aforesaid communication to the present employer of the petitioner, namely, Chhabra Power Plant Ltd., which is an autonomous company and the quoted portion of para 10 even goes to the extent of saying that said Chhabra Power Plant Ltd., may be informed so that he may not even remain in the Government service there and may not indulge in irregularities and financial defalcations in that Corporation, who is the present employer of the petitioner; and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. He also urged that once preliminary enquiry had already been held in the matter and it was held vide Annex.4 dated 14.05.2010 that the petitioner was not responsible for the alleged irregularities or defalcations, there was no justification for the learned Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the E.G.S., to re-initiate the enquiry and directing even FIR(s) to be lodged against the employees of the said Panchayat Samiti including the present petitioner, who has already resigned from the said job and had joined his regular appointment as Accountant in the Chhabra Power Plant Ltd. upon being selected for that position and such directions by one Government authority to other may cause serious prejudice to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned communication to that extent, deserves to be quashed. 6. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and perused the record and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. 7. The whole tenor of Annex.5 communication dated 28.01.2011 issued by the Commissioner of the Panchayati Raj Department, addressed to the Coordinator of the Scheme, i.e. the District Collector, Bhilwara, is to initiate appropriate action, as prima facie the said authority found that there have been certain irregularities in implementation of the NREGA scheme in the said Panchayati Samiti. While criminal investigation was sought to be initiated through filing of FIR(s), departmental disciplinary action was also simultaneously initiated to be taken by issuing charge sheets to the concerned persons. Since, the present petitioner had already resigned as Assistant Accountant, while he was working on contractual basis in the said Panchayat Samiti and had joined the regular employment in another Government undertaking, which information was available with the said Panchayat Samiti, if the Commissioner of the Scheme had found it appropriate to apprise the present employer of the petitioner, namely, Chhabra Power Plant Ltd., a subsidiary of the RRVUNL, even if such directions may not have been directly called for, the same cannot be held to be completely out of place in the context in which the said Commissioner sought to initiate action against the various officials implementing the NREGA Scheme during the contemporary period of 2010 upon formation of a prima facie opinion that the affairs of implementation of said scheme in the Panchayat Samiti-Suwana, Gram Panchayat Richda, requried investigation by the appropriate agency and also disciplinary actions. 8. Admittedly, no notice or action was yet initiated by the present employer of the present petitioner i.e. Chhabra Power Plant Ltd., at the point of time, when the petitioner filed the present writ petition or even later on and it was only on the apprehension of the petitioner that such action may be initiated against him by the present employer threatening his employment, he filed the present writ petition. By an interim order his service in the Chhabra Power Plant Ltd. was protected even though apparently no action had yet been initiated against him. This Court is of the clear opinion that actually no cause of action had at all arisen to the present petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court at this stage. 9. By an interim order his service in the Chhabra Power Plant Ltd. was protected even though apparently no action had yet been initiated against him. This Court is of the clear opinion that actually no cause of action had at all arisen to the present petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court at this stage. 9. This Court finds nothing wrong in one Government authority apprising the other Government authority about the pending investigation of the employee, who is presently serving the other organization. This would at least put on guard such other organization to watch the activities of the employee carefully against whom amongst others action has been initiated by the Ex-employer, namely, Panchayati Raj Department in the present case. The observations made in the impugned communication (Annex.5) dated 28.01.2011 that FIR may be filed against the petitioner and others and the present employer may be informed so that the irregularities committed by him while working in the Panchayati Raj Department, may be brought to their notice and he may not be allowed to serve the other Government organization, is rather to protect the State Government and implementation of its schemes from possible malpractices of a tainted person. It is all yet premature and by the impugned communication, nothing has been done except a direction to the learned District Collector, Bhilwara, to initiate action in the matter, so that proper investigation may be carried out and the guilty person may be booked, tried and punished. Nothing has been placed on record by either side before this Court as to what action has actually been taken in pursuance of the said communication (Annex.5) dated 28.01.2011 so far. 10. It certainly cannot be said that no action can be taken even if certain irregularities and defalcations are found in the implementation of the NREGA scheme by various Panchayat Samiti (s) and on the contrary, failure to take immediate actions and enquiry into the affairs and honest implementation of such scheme, has allowed mass scale corruption in the implementation of such schemes and a large number of cases have landed even in the dockets of this Court, wherein various kinds of corrupt activities by the officials of the Panchayati Raj Department contractually employed and implementing such schemes and works at various levels has been brought to the fore in such petitions before this Court. Therefore, initiation of criminal and disciplinary action against the erring officials, even if against the persons, who had sought an easy way out by resigning from the contractual employment of the Panchayati Raj Department at a convenient time, and who have sought regular employment in other Government Departments, instead of being looked down upon, much-less quashed, deserves to be appreciated. On the other hand, the slow pace of the investigation, some times even interrupted by the judicial process, which takes its own toll of time is a dampner towards the ends of justice . The very significance and rigour of such investigation and enquiry is lost merely with the lapse of time, non-availability of persons concerned, loss of evidence in the process of time etc. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, para 10 of the impugned communication (Annex.5) dated 28.01.2011 does not furnish any cause of action to the petitioner as has been sought to be made out before this Court and it was absolutely premature for the petitioner to knock the doors of this Court by way of present writ petition. Assuming for arguments' sake for a moment that it was so, and some action or notice was given by its present employer to the petitioner on the basis of Annex.5 communication dated 28.01.2011, though it only intended to communicate the result of investigation against the present petitioner and the irregularities purportedly committed by him to the present employer i.e. Chhabra Power Plant Ltd., which could happen only in future point of time, even if such a notice was to be given to him, the petitioner was and is expected to file his suitable explanation or reply to the same. The said communicate particularly para 10 thereof, cannot be said to be lacking jurisdiction or that there is such is patent lack of jurisdiction, which should prompt the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for even quashing of that communication, which indirectly may even stall and prevent any enquiry in the matter against the petitioner and others. 12. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide and plenary and also discretionary at the same time. The wider power is, more circumspection is required to be exercised while invoking such jurisdiction. 12. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide and plenary and also discretionary at the same time. The wider power is, more circumspection is required to be exercised while invoking such jurisdiction. Giving the protection on misplaced sympathy, preventing enquiry and investigation into the affairs of implementation of various Government schemes, which are required to be implemented with all bonafides and honesty, may cause serious prejudice to the State in the implementation of such schemes on the other hand. This Court, therefore, would not consciously extend any such misplaced sympathy to the petitioner or other similarly situated persons and the law should be allowed to take its own course till the logical end and the enquiries and investigation into the affairs of these schemes cannot be cut short or nipped in the bud like this. Therefore, viewed from any angle, this Court does not feel persuaded to quash the communication (Annex.5) dated 28.01.2011 to the extend it pertains to the petitioner at this stage. 13. In view of above discussion, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is found to be misconceived and premature and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.