ORDER : Vishal Mishra, J. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 13/15.04.2024 passed by the respondent No.3 whereby memorandum of charge has been issued to hold an enquiry against the petitioner on the imputed charges under Rule 30 of the Coal Indian Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2021. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is working with respondent company and is currently posted as Dy. Manager (HR/Pers.)/ E-4 Grade, Manpower and Recruitment department Northern Coalfields Limited, Singrauli (M.P.). He belongs to the Cadre of Executives whose services conditions are governed by Coal India Executives’ Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2021'). The petitioner made a complaint against respondent no. 5 vide email dated 15/02/2024 raising an issue of misconduct regarding his omission of taking previous sanction from competent authority regarding securing employment to his son Mr. Abhishek Kumar in the Renusagar Thermal Project of Hindalco Industries with whom NCL had professional transactions. 3. It is pointed out that the Coal India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'CIL') is a Maharatna company under the control of Ministry of Coal, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as 'MOC'). The CIL has ten fully owned Indian subsidiary companies, out of which, the petitioner is working in one of the subsidiary company i.e. Northern Coalfield Limited, Singrauli. As the petitioner highlighted an issue with respect to appointment to son of the respondent No.5 without any previous sanction from the competent authority pointing out the fact the respondent No.5 had abused his authoritative position and had violated Clause 6 of the Coal India Executives’ Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1978'), the authorities being annoyed with the petitioner has issued a memorandum of charge on 13/15.04.2024 on the ground that the complaint made by the petitioner duly investigated by the respondent No.2 and the said complaint found to be false as it was not supported by any documents. It is argued that appointment of son of the respondent No.5 was found to be genuine and not in violation of Clause 6 of the Rules of 1978 and the respondent No.5 was found to have not violated the Clause 6 of the Rules of 1978 and a report was submitted by the respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. It is argued that appointment of son of the respondent No.5 was found to be genuine and not in violation of Clause 6 of the Rules of 1978 and the respondent No.5 was found to have not violated the Clause 6 of the Rules of 1978 and a report was submitted by the respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. Based upon the same, a charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner. 4. It is argued that the complaint of the petitioner was though turned down, but the fact remains that allegations which are levied in the complaint were found to be correct as no previous sanction was taken by the respondent No.5 from the department for induction of his son in M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., being violative of Clause 6 of the Rules of 1978. He has drawn attention of this Court to a document filed along with I.A.No.18500 of 2024 wherein document dated 12/13.10.2017 shows that although post facto permission/approval in the matter of acceptance of employment to Mr. Abhishek Kumar son of Shri R.B. Prasad/the respondent No.5 was granted, but the same was granted subject to the condition that the respondent No.5/ Shri R.B. Prasad while in discharge of his official duties, shall not deal with any matter or give or sanction any contract to M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. and shall abide by the provisions of Rule 6.3 of the CDA Rules, 1978 of CIL. It is argued that the since the previous sanction was not taken by the respondent No.5, therefore, a post facto sanction was granted by the authorities. Therefore, the complaint made by the petitioner was correct. It cannot said to be an incorrect information. He has further drawn attention of this court to another application (I.A.No.20039 of 2024) to show that despite a specific rider put on the respondent No.5 not to deal with the matters relating to M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., he is continuously dealing with M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. matters and is regularly signing the documents. Along with the application, various documents have been filed to show that he is the signatory of those documents. It goes to show that the petitioner is unnecessarily being targeted. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further drawn attention of this court to the fact that there was no requirement of any documentary proof along with complaint. Along with the application, various documents have been filed to show that he is the signatory of those documents. It goes to show that the petitioner is unnecessarily being targeted. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further drawn attention of this court to the fact that there was no requirement of any documentary proof along with complaint. It has wrongly been observed by the authorities that there is no documentary proof annexed with the complaint by the petitioner. As the authorities themselves have granted post facto sanction to appointment of son of the respondent No.5, therefore, the factual part in the report is wrongly mentioned. The petitioner has not challenged the inquiry report as the same is rejected his complaint and in no manner is having any adverse impact upon the services of the petitioner. Another document is brought to the notice of this court issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal i.e. a letter dated 28.02.2024 wherein it is mentioned that "it is seen that there are many complaints being made against the officials before the selection process or retirement etc. This create unnecessary administrative delay." In view of the aforesaid, a direction was issued to CVO, CCL to take departmental action against the petitioner as per the Rules applicable in CCL under intimation to the Ministry. In pursuance to the same, a letter has been issued by CVO, CCL to CVO Northern Coal Field Limited, Singrauli. Based upon the said intimation dated 05.03.2024, a charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner. 5. Drawning attention of this Court to the charge-sheet, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been issued pointing out misconduct of the petitioner in terms of the Rules 4.1 (iii) "do nothing which is unbecoming of a public servant"; Rule 5.0 (6) "Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company"; Rule 5.0 (21) "Commission of any acts subversive of discipline or which amount to a criminal offence." and Rule 5.0 (27) "Breach of any of the provisions of these rules or any other statutes or rules". It is argued that if the aforesaid Rules are taken note of, then also the complaint made by the petitioner does not fall under any of the rules which are pointed out. Therefore, issuance of charge-sheet is per se illegal. 6. It is argued that if the aforesaid Rules are taken note of, then also the complaint made by the petitioner does not fall under any of the rules which are pointed out. Therefore, issuance of charge-sheet is per se illegal. 6. On notice being issued, a reply has been filed by the respondent No.3 raising a preliminary objection with respect to maintainability of the petition on the ground that a writ petition against charge-sheet is not maintainable in view of the settled legal proposition of law in the case of Jagdish Baheti vs. High Court of M.P. and others reported in (2015) 3 MPLJ 172 ; Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (2012) 11 SCC 565 and in the case of Umakant Mudgal vs. M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board (W.P.No.9457 of 2016) dated 23.08.2024 wherein the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 was taken note of. It is argued that if the settled legal proposition of law in the aforesaid cases is considered, then a writ petition against charge-sheet is not maintainable. 7. Apart from the aforesaid, it is contended that appointment of son of the respondent No.5 was made in the year 2017 and post facto approval was granted by the competent authority, which is permissible in terms of the Clause 6.2 of the Rules of 1978. The petitioner has made complaint directly to the Ministry of Coal and various other authorities against the respondent No.5 after lapse of 3/4 years from the date of appointment of son of the respondent No.5 just when the respondent is at the verge of retirement. The complaint was inquired into and found to be incorrect as the same was not supported by any documents. The authorities have found that such complaints are regularly being made to the authorities without any reasons causing hindrance in day to day working, therefore, the direction was issued to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. It is argued that the charge- sheet has been issued after due application of mind and taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and the same has not been issued on the instructions of any superior authority. 8. It is argued that the charge- sheet has been issued after due application of mind and taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and the same has not been issued on the instructions of any superior authority. 8. It is submitted that the competent authority i.e. Chairman-cum- Managing Director who has directed for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner, therefore, the charge-sheet is issued by a competent authority. It is argued that the petitioner has not challenged the enquiry report given by the authorities wherein the complaint made by the petitioner was found to be incorrect. It is further pointed out that a retired Director (Pers). BCCL is appointed as enquiry authority, therefore, the charges which are levied against the petitioner are yet to be inquired into and the authorities have not taken a final decision or imposed punishment against the petitioner. The petitioner will be having ample opportunities to lead evidence in the departmental enquiry. 9. As far as signatures of the respondent No.5 on certain documents which are brought to notice of this court to substantiate that he is still indulging in dealing with M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. is concerned, it is argued that the documents which are pointed out are the delivery orders-cum-receipt vouchers of Northern Coalfield. The respondent No.5 is only receiving or dispatching the said documents. No authoritative decisions are being taken by the respondent No.5 with respect to dealing with M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd.. He is only acting as a postman in terms of the directions given by the superior authorities. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No.5 is still indulge in dealing with M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd.. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 although has filed a return to the writ petition pointing out the fact that the complaint made by the petitioner was found to be incorrect and was rightly dismissed by the authorities. Apart from aforesaid, there is no other say by the respondent No.5 as the petitioner has not raised any grievance against the respondent No.5. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Apart from aforesaid, there is no other say by the respondent No.5 as the petitioner has not raised any grievance against the respondent No.5. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. From the perusal of the record, it is an admitted position that the petitioner has filed a complaint to the Ministry of Coal, Government of India with respect to misusing of his position by the respondent No.5 in getting employment to his son M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. which is violative of Clause 6 of the Rules of 1978. Clause 6 of the aforesaid Rules is relevant and required to be seen: "6.0 EMPLOYMENT OF NEAR RELATIONS 6.1 No employee shall use his position or influence directly or indirectly to secure employment under the Company for any person related, whether by blood or marriage to the employee or to the employee's wife or husband, whether such a person is dependent on the employee or not. Every employee shall submit in Form No.1 (annexed) a statement regarding employment of relatives under the Company at the time of his first appointment and at such intervals as may be decided by the Competent Authority. Every employee in addition to the statement in Form No. 1; shall also furnish to the Competent Authority a declaration in Form No. II (annexed) at the time of his first a ointment and at such intervals thereafter as may be decided by the Competent Authority showing the details of his/her relatives employed in any company or firm or business houses doing business with the Company. 6.2 No employee shall, except with the previous sanction of the Competent Authority, permit his son, daughter or any member of the family to accept employment with any company or firm with which he has official dealings. Provided that where the acceptance of the employment cannot await the prior sanction of the Competent Authority, the employment may be accepted subject to the sanction of the Competent Authority, being sought forthwith. Provided that where the acceptance of the employment cannot await the prior sanction of the Competent Authority, the employment may be accepted subject to the sanction of the Competent Authority, being sought forthwith. 6.3 No employee shall in the discharge of his official duties deal with any matter or give or sanction any contract to any company or firm or any other person if any member of his family is employed in that firm or under that person or if he or any member of his family is interested in such matter or contract in any other matter and the employee shall refer every such matter or contract to his official superior and the matter or the contract shall thereafter be disposed of according to the instructions of the authority to whom the reference is made.” 13. The complaint made by the petitioner was to the extent that no previous sanction was taken by the respondent No.5 prior to getting his son appointed in M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd.. Allegation made by the petitioner was that the respondent No.5 has misused his position as he was regularly dealing with M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., therefore, he has pressurized the officers of M/s Hindalco for giving appointment to his son in the company, which is violated of Clause 6 of the Rules of 1978 which deals with employment of near relatives. 14. The documents place on records clarify the position that post facto sanction was given by the authorities to the respondent No.5 for induction of his son in service in M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., which is clear from the document dated 12/13.10.2017 which is an approval with regard to employment of his son in M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd.. The letter written by the Chief Manager (P-EE) to the respondent No.5 who at the relevant time was working as a General Manager in Northern Coalfield Ltd., Singrauli. The aforesaid letter further clarify position that this post facto permission was granted subject to condition that Shri R.B. Prasad while in discharge his official duty shall not deal with any matter or give or sanction any contract to M/s Hindalco Industries Limited and shall abide by the provisions of Rules 6.3 of CDA Rules of 1978 of CIL amended up to date. The letter further clarify that the respondent No.5 is working on the post of General Manager in Northern Coalfield Limited, Singrauli. The letter further clarify that the respondent No.5 is working on the post of General Manager in Northern Coalfield Limited, Singrauli. It further clarifies the position that he was regularly dealing with M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further brought to the notice of this Court several documents to show that respondent No.5 despite order passed by the authorities 12/13.10.2017 is continuously dealing with M/s Hindalco Industries Limited as his signatures are available on the delivery orders-cum-advanced-receipt vouchers and other documents. The respondent No.5 working on the post of General Manager in Northern Coalfield Limited Singruali is not disputed. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the complaint made by the petitioner with respect to prior sanction not accorded by the respondent No.5 for appointment of his son in M/s Hindalco Industries Limited was correct as only post facto permission was granted. Thereafter a letter dated 28.2.2024 was being issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal to the following effect: "I am directed to refer to CCL letter ref no. CCL/Vig/CRSN- 58/2024/2464 dated 26.02.2024 and to say that the status intimated by you in respect of Shri Ram Baboo Prasad has been noted in the Ministry. 2. It is observed form the report that the allegations matte in the complaint could not be substantiated and the complaint was without any documentary proof. Also, it is seen that there are many complaints being made against officials before selection process, retirement etc. This creates: unnecessary administrative delays. For example in this case, the allegation made in the complaint was related to the year 2017, however, it was reported just 1 month before the retirement in 2024. This implies that there is malafide/ulterior motive to tarnish the personal reputation of government functionaries. 3. In view of above, CVO, CCL is requested ta take departmental action against Shiri Pawan Dookia, Dy Manager (HR), CCL as per the rules applicable in CCL under intimation to the Ministry." 15. This implies that there is malafide/ulterior motive to tarnish the personal reputation of government functionaries. 3. In view of above, CVO, CCL is requested ta take departmental action against Shiri Pawan Dookia, Dy Manager (HR), CCL as per the rules applicable in CCL under intimation to the Ministry." 15. From the perusal of the aforesaid letter, it is seen that the case of the petitioner as well as Shri Ram Babu Prasad, Director (Technical) was taken note of by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal and it was observed that since several complaints are being made against the officials before selection process or retirement, which create unnecessary administrative delay, therefore, CVO, CCL was requested to take departmental action against the petitioner in terms of the Rules of CCL under intimation to the Ministry. In pursuance to the said letter, CVO, CCL vide letter dated 05.03.2024 written to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Northern Coalfield Ltd., Singrauli has directed to take action against Shri Pawan Kumar Dookia, i.e. the petitioner. The details of the said letter are as under:- "A complaint from Shri Pawan Kumar Dookia, Dy. Manager (HR/Pers), Manpower Department, NCL, HQ, against Shri Ram Baboo Prasad, Director (Technical) CCL was received and advised by MoC to send Factual Report by 26.02.2024. 2. Factual report was sent to MoC on 26.02.2024, on which, Ministry has observed that the allegations made in the complaint could not be substantiated. 3. It was requested by MoC to take departmental action against Shri Pawan Dookia, Dy Manager (HR/Pers.), NCL HQ as per the applicable rule under intimation to the Ministry. 4. As Shri Dookia is posted in NCL, necessary departmental action may be taken against him under intimation to the Ministry:, 5. A copy of the investigation file of the subject complaint is sent herewith for your reference. This is for your kind information" It was further observed in the letter that necessary departmental action be taken against the petitioner under intimation to the Ministry. In pursuance to the same, the charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner, which is the order impugned in the present petition. 16. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the entire disciplinary action and issuance of charge-sheet has been taken against the petitioner in pursuance to the directions given by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal. In pursuance to the same, the charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner, which is the order impugned in the present petition. 16. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the entire disciplinary action and issuance of charge-sheet has been taken against the petitioner in pursuance to the directions given by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal. Thus it cannot be said that the authorities have applied its mind prior to issuance of a charge-sheet to the petitioner. The documents clearly reflect that the complaint made by the petitioner was not a futile complaint, it was a correct and a genuine complaint. The arguments raised counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 that the enquiry report has not been put to challenge by the petitioner wherein it was found that the complaint made by the petitioner was incorrect and the complaint was dropped, but the fact remains that the petitioner is not aggrieved by dismissal of his complaint by the authorities rather he is only aggrieved by issuance of a charge-sheet to him, therefore, he has chosen not to challenge the enquiry report. Issuance of a charge-sheet is based upon the complaint made by the petitioner. 17. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual circumstances, now the charges levied against the petitioner are required to be seen. The Rule 4.1 (iii) reads thus that "do nothing which is unbecoming of a public servant". Merely making a complaint regarding conduct of the respondent No.5 to the superior authority does not amount to any unbecoming of a public servant. Therefore, the said Rule is not applicable to allege that any misconduct being done by the petitioner. 18. The Rule 5.0 (6) reads thus "acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the company". The complaint made by the petitioner to the superior authority regarding respondent No.5 misusing his position and getting his son appointed in M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. without seeking prior sanction from the authorities, was virtually correct as only post facto sanction was granted by the authorities, meaning thereby, no previous information or sanction form the authorities was taken by the respondent No.5, although, the authorities have taken a decision to reject the complaint of the petitioner, but the fact remains that the complaint made by the petitioner is in no way or manner amounts to prejudicial to the interest of the company. The petitioner has made an attempt to point out that the respondent No.5 has misused his position and has worked in violation of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1978. 19. As far as Rule 5.0 (21) that "Commission of any acts subversive of discipline or which amount to a criminal offence" is concerned, the same is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner has not violated the discipline of the Coal India Limited or the Rules of 1978 in any manner. It was a genuine complaint which was made by the petitioner to the superior authorities pointing out the manner in which the respondent No.5 has misused his position to get his son appointed in M/s HIndalco Industries Ltd. 20. Similarly Rule 5.0 (27) that "Breach of any of the provisions of these rules or any other statutes or rules" is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that by making a genuine complaint to the superior authority any of the statutory provisions or Rules are being violated or there is any breach of the said Rules especially in the circumstance when the complaint made by the petitioner was factually correct as no previous sanction or approval was taken by the respondent No.5 to get his son appointed in M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. The charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner based upon these four Rules. 21. Surprising to see that the Government of India, Ministry of Coal vide letter dated 28.02.2024 despite observing the fact that there are many complaints being made against officials before selection process or retirement have chosen to direct for a departmental action to be taken against the petitioner. Whether any departmental action is taken against other officials who have also made complaints to the superior authorities is not reflected from any documents. A specific question was put to the counsel for the respondent No.5 to show any other departmental action in pursuance to the letter dated 28.02.2024 against any other official, but he is unable to explain the same. 22. This Court is aware of the fact that interference in charge-sheet in a writ petition should be made in exception circumstances. A specific question was put to the counsel for the respondent No.5 to show any other departmental action in pursuance to the letter dated 28.02.2024 against any other official, but he is unable to explain the same. 22. This Court is aware of the fact that interference in charge-sheet in a writ petition should be made in exception circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme in catena of judgments has already held that the charge-sheet should not be interfered in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but in case in hand, it is clear cut case of issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioner based upon incorrect facts. There is nothing on record to show that reasons for issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioner except the fact that the petitioner has made a complaint against the respondent No.5 at the fag end of his service career. The fact remains that the complaint was factually correct. There is nothing on record to show that any attempt was made by the respondent No.5 or any intimation was given to the superior authorities by the respondent No.5 to seek approval or sanction for appointment of his son in M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. despite a specific rider in terms of the Rule 6 of the Rules of 1978. The respondent No.5 admittedly was working on the post of General Manager as is reflected from the letter dated 12/13.10.2017 whereby post facto permission or approval was granted by the authorities. It is also reflected that the respondent No.5 was continuously dealing with M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. Thus, he has virtually misused his position to get his son appointed in M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. It may be a case that post facto sanction was granted by the authorities, but the fact remains that the complaint made by the petitioner was correct to certain extent. The complaint of the petitioner was to the extent that prior permission or sanction was not taken. Even otherwise, the disciplinary action is taken against the petitioner in terms of the directions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal, which is reflected from the letter dated 28.02.2024, which makes it clear that virtually there is no application of mind by the authorities while issuing the charge-sheet to the petitioner. The entire action has been taken by the authorities in pursuance to the directions given by the superior authorities. The entire action has been taken by the authorities in pursuance to the directions given by the superior authorities. Under these circumstances, the interference in case of charge-sheet can be made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. This court in the case of Dr. Rashmi Rekha Mishra vs. State of M.P. and another (W.P.No.9657 of 2023) dated 11.10.2023 has considered the aspect of application of mind by the authorities prior to issuance of charge-sheet and it is held as under: "10. The next question is regarding availability of alternative remedy. No doubt, as per M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (CCA Rules) the order of suspension is appealable. In the instant case, the respondents in order dated 3rd May, 2023 (Annexure R-3) mentioned about the allegations/reasons on the strength of which action has been taken against the petitioner. One such reason is that the Hon’ble Minister, Aayush has directed to place the petitioner under suspension. In this backdrop, the question whether the petitioner should be relegated to avail the appellate remedy is ponderable. The suspension order is issued by Deputy Secretary, Ayush Department of Government of M.P. As per Rule 9 of the CCA Rules. The competence of said authority is not questioned. However, the one of the reasons assigned in order dated 3rd May, 2023 shows that specific directions to suspend the petitioner have been issued by the Minister concerned. Thus, there is no manner of doubt that the competent authority has not issued the suspension order by independent application of mind. Instead, he issued the order under the dictate of the concerned Minister. This is well settled that when a statutory authority is empowered to take a decision, the said authority must take that decision independently within the statutory framework. If he takes the decision on the dictate of higher authority, the order under challenge becomes vulnerable. 11. In several cases, the Courts have emphasized that a statutory authority must exercise its own mind in deciding a matter before it and not act under direction from any quarter. Thus, in R. Rodrigues Vs. W.G. Ronadive, AIR 1970, Goa 94, the High court quashed a decision by a mamlatdar acting under S.7 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, on the ground that he had reached the decision mainly because the Chief Minister had decided in that way." 24. Thus, in R. Rodrigues Vs. W.G. Ronadive, AIR 1970, Goa 94, the High court quashed a decision by a mamlatdar acting under S.7 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, on the ground that he had reached the decision mainly because the Chief Minister had decided in that way." 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2006) 12 SCC 33 has held as under: "9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr. AIR 1987 SC 943 , Special Director and Another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2006 (12) SCALE 262 ], but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle, viz, when a notice is issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the courts directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose [See K.I. Shephard and Others v. Union of India and Others (1987) 4 SCC 431 : AIR 1988 SC 686 ]. It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter affidavit as also in its purported show cause. 10. The said principle has been followed by this Court in V.C. Banaras Hindu University and Ors. v. Shrikant [ 2006 (6) SCALE 66 ], stating: "48. The Vice Chancellor appears to have made up his mind to impose the punishment of dismissal on the Respondent herein. A post decisional hearing given by the High Court was illusory in this case. 49. In K.I. Shephard & Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. [ AIR 1988 SC 686 ], this Court held : "It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose." [See also Shri Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India & Anr. etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. [ AIR 1988 SC 686 ], this Court held : "It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose." [See also Shri Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India & Anr. 2006 (11) SCALE 363 and Rajesh Kumar & Ors. v. D.C.I.T. & Ors. 2006 (11) SCALE 409 ]. 11. A bare perusal of the order impugned before the High Court as also the statements made before us in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, we are satisfied that the statutory authority has already applied its mind and has formed an opinion as regards the liability or otherwise of the appellant. If in passing the order the respondent has already determined the liability of the appellant and the only question which remains for its consideration is quantification thereof, the same does not remain in the realm of a show cause notice. The writ petition, in our opinion, was maintainable." 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the case of Manohar Lal (Dead) By LRs. vs. Ugrasen (dead) By Lrs. and others reported in (2010) 11 SCC 557 has held as under: "23. Therefore, the law on the question can be summarised to the effect that no higher authority in the hierarchy or an appellate or revisional authority can exercise the power of the statutory authority nor the superior authority can mortgage its wisdom and direct the statutory authority to act in a particular manner. If the appellate or revisional Authority takes upon itself the task of the statutory authority and passes an order, it remains unenforceable for the reason that it cannot be termed to be an order passed under the Act." 26. For the sake of repetition, the entire action has been taken against the petitioner in pursuance to the directions given by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal, which is reflected from the letter dated 28.02.2024. This goes to show that there was no application of mind by the authorities prior to issuance of charge-sheet. Under these circumstances, the entire action taken by the authorities against the petitioner including the issuance of charge-sheet is per se illegal and unsustainable. The same is hereby quashed. 27. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.