JUDGMENT : Abhinava Upadhya, J. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pashupati Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5 and 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has come to this Court challenging a show cause notice given by a Committee of Management, pursuant to the enquiry conducted by Committee of Management in which the petitioner has been found to be guilty and before pronouncing the final order a show cause notice has been given to the petitioner. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an Officiating Principal in an intermediate college which is aided and governed by provision U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Act No. 5 of 1982. The procedure to enquiry into the conduct of the Principal has been provided in these two acts and the final order for pronouncing punishment of any kind is to be passed with the approval Selection Board. 4. The principle grievance of petitioner in this writ petition is that entire procedure has been initiated at the behest of Collector, which has no role. However, since no final order has been passed as yet, I am not inclined to interfere. Even otherwise if some final order is passed and the petitioner has any grievance with the procedure adopted, he can raise before the authority which grants approval for the punishment. 5. The petition at this stage is misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed.