JUDGMENT : Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Shri I. Agha, learned counsel waives service on behalf of respondent no.2. 2. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide Memorandum dated 30/01/2017 and further to consider his resignation application dated 16/01/2017 and to relive so as to enable him to take other assignment, if any. The contesting respondent by affidavit-in-reply resisted the claims of the petitioner. By an additional affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated his prayers by placing on record more documents in support of his contentions. 3. The relevant Rule 20(2)(b) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 and Explanation as read and referred to by the parties and as necessary to decide the issue is reproduced as under:- “20(2)(b) Disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be pending against an officer for the purpose of this rule if he has been placed under suspension or any notice has been issued to him to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be instituted against him or where any charge-sheet has been issued against him and will be deemed to be pending until final orders are passed by the competent authority. Explanation : A show cause notice or order of suspension or charge-sheet shall be deemed to have been issued prior to or during the period of notice, if it has been signed by the authority empowered in this behalf under the rules and put on a course of transmission prior to or during the said period whether or not it was actually received by the officer.” 4. The basic events read as under:- (i) On 30.1.2012 the petitioner was appointed and worked as Deputy Manager (Security). The petitioner in view of better prospects had applied for the post of Senior Manager (Security) in Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited, Kanhanbag, Hyderabad. On 28.11.2016, the petitioner prior to applying for the said post had applied for permission from Respondent no.1, which permission/NOC was granted vide NOC bearing no. DGM/CMHR/SS/0668 on the terms as mentioned in the said NOC. (ii) The petitioner made request/claim for compensation for having worked during the demonetization period as also made representation and seeking redressal of his grievance. On 29.12.2016, vide letter bearing no.DGM/CMHR/2010 respondent no.1 rejected the request made by the petitioner. DGM/CMHR/SS/0668 on the terms as mentioned in the said NOC. (ii) The petitioner made request/claim for compensation for having worked during the demonetization period as also made representation and seeking redressal of his grievance. On 29.12.2016, vide letter bearing no.DGM/CMHR/2010 respondent no.1 rejected the request made by the petitioner. (iii) As stated on 30.12.2016, respondent no.1 issued letter bearing no.DGM/CMHR/2012 inter alia making allegations of alleged misbehaviour by the petitioner and thereby calling upon an explanation. On 30.12.2016 and 31.12.2016 the petitioner replied it. On 16.01.2017, the petitioner tendered his resignation/sought for voluntary resignation from the Bank's service. On 19.1.2017, vide letter bearing no.DGM/CMHR/SS/0799 respondent no.1 inter alia claim that the request made by the petitioner was forwarded to the competent authority. On 30.1.2017, vide letter bearing no.DGM/CMHR/SS/836 the petitioner was informed that the resignation letter dated 16.01.2017 was being processed. (iv) However, on 30.1.2017 vide letter bearing DGM/(B&O)/DISC/PUN/879 respondent no.2 forwarded a Memorandum alongwith Articles of charge and statements of allegations dated 30.1.2017 stating it to be measured penalty proceedings. As stated the allegations sought to be made in the memorandum and the Articles of Charge inter alia were that during the period from 30.1.2012 till date the petitioner failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and acted in the manner unbecoming of an officer and highly prejudicial to the Bank's interest. (v) On 31.1.2017 vide e-mail addressed to the Chairman, SBI the petitioner for the reasons stated therein made a request to consider the case of the petitioner and to accept the resignation letter tendered by the petitioner on 17.1.2017. The request made by the petitioner was on account of the urgency in the case of the petitioner as the petitioner was selected as a Senior Manager (Security), Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited”. 5. The petitioner's submissions are that even after communication dated 28/12/2016, whereby an explanation was sought for insubordination, misbehaviour and claimed false compensation, the respondent's Officer proceeded to consider his resignation letter dated 16/1/2017 by communication dated 19/1/2017. Even the Chief Manager (HR) in annual increment as issued, has recorded finding in favour of the petitioner with endorsement, ”The above-named Official is performing his duties satisfactorily. Even the Chief Manager (HR) in annual increment as issued, has recorded finding in favour of the petitioner with endorsement, ”The above-named Official is performing his duties satisfactorily. There are no disciplinary/vigilance cases pending/contemplated against the official and he has submitted the statement of Assets and Liabilities as on 31/03/2016.” Therefore, the tenure and/or communication dated 28/12/2016 in no way or at least should not be treated as any show cause notice as contemplated under Rule 20 (2) (b) of the Rules and, therefore, there was no reason not to accept the resignation so tendered by the petitioner as he is interested in pursuing his services in other institution or department. 6. We are unable to accept the submission specifically in view of the contents of the communication dated 28.12.2016 whereby based upon the incidents prior to the date of resignation, the respondent sought the explanation from the petitioner within seven days from the date of receipt of the communication. Such communication/explanation, so sought by the respondent, considering the Rule 20 (2)(b) and the explanation so given, falls within its ambit. The respondent definitely insisted upon the petitioner to give the explanation for insubordination, misbehaviour and the claim so raised. The petitioner gave his explanation prior to his resignation letter. In view of the clause 20 (2)(b) of the Rules, he participated and replied to the show cause notice before tendering the resignation. The correctness and/or merits of the communication dated 28/12/2016 and/or the defence, so raised that itself is the matter of inquiry. 7. The issue is, whether in view of the above position on record, the High Court in its writ jurisdiction still can direct the respondent to consider the prayers so made by the petitioner? The answer is no. The fact of asking explanation within seven days for the alleged action/inaction and the fact that the petitioner did reply to the same itself, in our view, crystallized the position that the contemplated inquiry intended by the respondent, even prior to the resignation letter. The answer is no. The fact of asking explanation within seven days for the alleged action/inaction and the fact that the petitioner did reply to the same itself, in our view, crystallized the position that the contemplated inquiry intended by the respondent, even prior to the resignation letter. This, in our view, sufficient to accept the case of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent that no case is made out by the petitioner to pass any order by invoking under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, specifically when the statement is made that they will also try to dispose off and decide the inquiry so contemplated, as early as possible, and preferably within the schedule/date so fixed by the Inquiry Officer. 8. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, there is no case made out to grant the reliefs, so prayed for. The petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs.