ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court in this petition assailing the order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT' for short) in O.A. No. 360/2015. The petitioner is further seeking that the notice dated 12.11.2013, Show cause notice dated 16.12.2015 and the Articles of Charge dated 25.05.2015 be set aside. The consequential relief of recommending the name of the petitioner for the President's Medal is also sought. 2. The petitioner is a Senior IPS Officer of the Karnataka Cadre. He was one among the officers who had been shortlisted for the purpose of recommending his name for Award of Distinguished Service/Police Medal for meritorious service on the occasion of Republic Day–2014. Such recommendation was to be processed subject to verification of the Confidential Reports pertaining to the officers who were so shortlisted. At that stage the petitioner was issued a notice dated 12.11.2013 intimating him about the proposal to incorporate certain observations in his confidential reports about abuse of process of law by the petitioner, as observed by this Court in two criminal petitions. Subsequently a show cause notice dated 16.02.2015 was also issued to the petitioner alleging that he had filed a false affidavit for securing allotment of a site from the BDA. The petitioner alleging that the said action by the respondents is malafide to deny him the honour of being conferred with the President's Medal was before the CAT assailing the action proposed. The CAT through the order dated 24.01.2017 did not interfere with the action proposed by issue of notice, but with regard to the Award of President’s Medal, certain observations were made and the application was disposed of. The petitioner therefore claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court. 3. The respondents have filed their objection statement seeking to justify their action and to sustain the order of the CAT. 4. In that background we have heard Sri. D.L.N.Rao, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri. Anirudh Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. I. Taranath Poojary, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. We have accordingly perused the petition papers. 5. The challenge of the petitioner is to the notice seeking to incorporate adverse remarks in the service records, show cause notice alleging the filing of false affidavit and the Articles of charge issued in that regard. I. Taranath Poojary, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. We have accordingly perused the petition papers. 5. The challenge of the petitioner is to the notice seeking to incorporate adverse remarks in the service records, show cause notice alleging the filing of false affidavit and the Articles of charge issued in that regard. The CAT has therefore arrived at the conclusion that it is premature to interfere as the petitioner can put forth the defence in the proposed enquiry. On this aspect the CAT has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs Kunisetty Sathyanarayana [(2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 304]. 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has referred to the decision in the case of The State of M.P. vs Bani Singh and another ( AIR 1990 SC 1308 ) wherein it is held as hereunder; “4. The appeal against the order dated 16.12.1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-1977. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April, 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.” 7. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.” 7. On the legal aspect with regard to interference in such matters, the position is crystal clear that in an ordinary circumstance, the Courts are required to be loath to interfere in disciplinary matters at the stage of issue of showcause notice or Articles of charge. Therefore, ordinarily there will be no interference. But in circumstances where grounds urged are with regard to the manner in which the proceedings are initiated belatedly and that too if it indicates malafide on the face of it, the Courts will have to certainly consider as to whether in the facts and circumstances obtaining in a particular case, the employee/officer concerned should be made to undergo the arduous process of facing the enquiry only for the sake of the completion of the process, merely because he would have an opportunity to defend himself and come clean despite the records on the face of it indicating that such process is not desirable. When there are complicated issues which may require recording of evidence in the process of enquiry to ultimately arrive at a conclusion, no doubt the only option should be to allow the employee to go through the process. However if in a particular case the material on record itself discloses that the enquiry proposed will be a futile exercise and the mere pendency of the enquiry will affect the prospects of the employee in such service, the Court is required to exercise its discretion to take note of the situation and redress the grievance. 8. In the above background, the process initiated against the petitioner will have to be noticed so as to arrive at an appropriate conclusion in the present facts. The petitioner herein had filed a Criminal Petition No.1627/2005, making certain allegations against certain other officers in relation to the action taken by them in other writ petition to his detriment because of which he had the grievance. The petitioner herein had filed a Criminal Petition No.1627/2005, making certain allegations against certain other officers in relation to the action taken by them in other writ petition to his detriment because of which he had the grievance. A learned Judge of this Court through the order dated 29.03.2010 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein and observed that it was an abuse of process of law and while dismissing the petition, cost was imposed. The cost was subsequently waived by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, in respect of the action initiated by the petitioner herein, another officer filed the Criminal Petition No.898/2012 which was allowed by another learned Judge by the order dated 10.10.2012 and it was observed that action of the petitioner herein was an abuse of process of law. The matter had stood at that and the file had been closed. 9. Apart from the fact that the different officers were involved in the inter se litigation making certain allegations against each other and in that process the observation was made by this Court about the abuse of process of law, the manner in which it was presently brought to the fore in the situation as it has been done is also to be noticed so as to arrive at an appropriate decision. From the date of the orders passed in the said criminal petitions, the same had remained dormant and no action was proposed against the petitioner. When this was the situation the Unofficial Note dated 06.11.2013 (Annexure-J) was issued recommending the names of the officers for the Republic Day 2014 honour. One of the considerations for inclusion of the names in the list was also that there was no Departmental Enquiry, Criminal case or Judicial Enquiry pending as on that day against the officers recommended, which included the petitioner. It is in that backdrop the Secret note (Annexure-K) is issued on 06.11.2013, pursuant to which the impugned notice dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure-O) is issued to the petitioner proposing to include the said observation relating to abuse of process of law in the service records despite there being no direction to that effect by the Court. Hence the said action will have to be reckoned as an action which has been initiated only in that background and there was no legal compulsion in that regard. 10. Hence the said action will have to be reckoned as an action which has been initiated only in that background and there was no legal compulsion in that regard. 10. The next action proposed is the show cause notice dated 16.02.2015 (Annexure-P) alleging the filing of a false affidavit by the petitioner for procuring the site from the BDA. A consideration of this aspect was made by the respondents as far back in the year 2008 as per the note sheet at Annexure-R. Pursuant thereto the letter dated 21.05.2009 (Annexure-S) is addressed wherein the respondents have taken note of these aspects and allowed the matter to rest as far back as in the year 2009 but the same has been revived at present, which on the face of it will indicate lack of bonafide in the proposed action. 11. That apart, the petitioner has also filed additional documents before this Court. From the same the learned senior counsel would refer to the representation dated 16.06.2017 (Annexure-JJ) submitted by the petitioner since the appointment of the enquiry officer was made. A consideration of the same has been made by the Law Department as per the note dated 08.11.2017 (Annexure-KK) and the flaw in continuing the enquiry against the petitioner was pointed out in the said note. It is therefore contended by the learned senior counsel that the entire enquiry proceedings as initiated is without basis in respect of stale charges which had already been considered and closed by the respondents themselves and it has been reopened despite the Business Rules not permitting the same. 12. In the above backdrop if the legal position as noted is kept in view and if the factual aspect is taken note of, it is seen that all concluded issues relating to the petitioner is being attempted to be reopened and kept alive. The triggering point appears to be the recommendation dated 06.11.2013 (Annexure J) for conferring the President's medal. The performance appraisal of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 (Annexure-D) not only, does not indicate any adverse comment or remark but he has been graded at 9.5 out of 10 in the scale of 110. The issues sought to be enquired against are issues of the period prior to the said assessment and the recommendation also stated that there are no proceedings pending. The issues sought to be enquired against are issues of the period prior to the said assessment and the recommendation also stated that there are no proceedings pending. In that view, in the facts and circumstances of the present case there would be no justification to permit such an enquiry only because it was at the stage of Articles of charge. 13. Insofar as the relief sought by the petitioner to direct the respondents to recommend the name of the petitioner for the Republic Day Award, the same does not arise for consideration at this stage as rightly observed by the CAT. On the closure of the present proceedings, it is a matter to be taken note by the respondents if there is no other legal impediment in that regard. On that aspect we therefore do not see the need to make any specific order. 14. Hence, for all the afore stated reasons the following order: (i) The order dated 24.01.2017 in O.A. No.360/2015 is set aside to the extent stated above. (ii) Consequently the Show cause notices dated 12.11.2013 (Annexure-O); 16.02.2015 (Annexure-P); the Articles of charge dated 25.05.2015 (Annexure-Q) and all further proceedings thereto are setaside. (iii) The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.