1. Petitioner, Branch Manager of the respondent-Insurance Company, has filed the instant petition seeking quashment of the enquiry report dated 21.05.2014 and the show cause notice dated 28.05.2014 on the ground that the process initiated is simply aimed at wrecking vengeance. 2. The articles of charge as were framed, precisely, would suggest that the petitioner secured entry into the service as Development Inspector of the Company in the year 1979 by furnishing false information in the application form by recording his date of birth as 1st September, 1955, secondly has submitted fake certified copy of the higher secondary examination showing his date of birth as 1st September, 1955 and thirdly has been furnishing false information recording age during the course of employment. The enquiry officer in his report dated 21st May, 2014 has submitted the following points for consideration to the disciplinary authority: i) The documents submitted by the CSO were never verified during his long tenure of service of about 34 years. It is suggested that the documents submitted by the employees at the time of his entry into the service may be verified from the issuing authorities within minimum possible time; ii) The DOB issued by Registrar Births and Deaths office, Srinagar Municipal Corporation on the court order though on an application by CSO may override/affect of the fake copy of the certificate submitted by CSO at the time of his appointment as Development Inspector at this stage after 34 years in service. 3. Based on the said enquiry report dated 21.05.2014, the disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice dated 28.05.2014 where-under petitioner has been called upon to submit his representation, if any, against the conclusions of the enquiry officer within a period of 15 days from the date of notice with a condition that if the petitioner fails, it will be presumed that he has nothing to submit and further action in accordance with rules will follow. 4. Instant petition appears to have been filed simply to scuttle the departmental proceedings as initiated against the petitioner. Since the show cause notice has been issued by the disciplinary authority, therefore, it is open to the petitioner to explain his position and to project everything whatever is available to him as against the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer. To entertain the writ petition against the said proceedings initiated is impermissible. 5. Since the show cause notice has been issued by the disciplinary authority, therefore, it is open to the petitioner to explain his position and to project everything whatever is available to him as against the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer. To entertain the writ petition against the said proceedings initiated is impermissible. 5. The judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 2045 , AIR 1969 SC 1294 and 1969 (2) SCC 157, as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage are of no help to him because in the reported judgments services of the employees were finally terminated and on examination of the rule position and adherence thereto, judgments have been rendered. In the instant case proceedings are pending, enquiry report has been submitted, disciplinary authority has issued the show cause notice and final decision is yet to be taken. 6. For the stated reasons, petition has no merit, as such, dismissed along with connected CMP. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be given fifteen days time for filing representation against the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer and shall be properly heard in support thereof. While proceeding further in the matter, all applicable rules and regulations shall be strictly adhered to. Dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner, if required, from challenging the subsequent orders, as may be passed.