ORDER : Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. By institution of the instant writ application, the petitioner has challenged the recovery notices dated 6th April, 2017, issued to him. From the contents of the notice, it is reflected that the petitioner in the capacity of Manager of Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank Ltd., has been irresponsible in discharge of his duties, which facilitated withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 52,853/- (Rupees Fifty two thousand eight hundred fifty three), deposited by one of the depositor namely Smt. Santosh Choudhary. 2. In response to the notice, the petitioner vide communication dated 21st April, 2017, reserved his right to file reply to the notice only after he was furnished with the necessary information’s/documents for which an application was filed through counsel on 17th April, 2017, under Right to Information Act, 2005. 3. Heard and considered. 4. In the case of Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana : (2006) 12 SCC 28 , the Apex Court of the land in no uncertain terms held that a writ application impugning a show cause notice or charge-sheet would not ordinarily be maintainable. 5. Having considered the factual matrix and singular facts and circumstances of the case at hand and the nature of allegations against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 7. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file proper reply/response to the notice and in that event the competent authority may consider the same and proceed in the matter in accordance with law. The recovery which is sought to be made shall be subject to outcome of the enquiry proceedings, if any.