Allahabad High Court
Subedar Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru.Addl. Secy. Law ... on 11 August, 2022
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5064 of 2022
Petitioner :- Subedar Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Addl. Secy. Law And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Nath Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 04.07.2022 served by the respondents to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge-sheet has been issued after the retirement of the petitioner. It is further submitted that earlier also the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition (Writ A No. 1656 of 2022) when the charge-sheet was issued in violation of Regulation 351 A of the Civil Service Regulation as no sanction was taken from the Government and the same was allowed by this Court vide its judgment dated 11.04.2022 quashing the charge-sheet. Thereafter the sanction has been taken under Regulation 351 A of the Civil Service Regulation and a fresh charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner.
It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been issued ignoring completely the order passed by the competent court of law declaring the date of birth of the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned standing counsel and Sri Vijay Dixit, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 have submitted that the charge-sheet is quashed in rarest of the rare circumstances and in the present case, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of the civil court pertaining to declaring the date of birth on the basis of records of some other institute whereas in the charge-sheet there is wrong mentioning of date of birth in the records of some other institute as well as the allegation of wrong qualification disclosed by the petitioner at the time of his appointment and all these matters require inquiry into the facts.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and Ors. vs. Upendra Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 357] & State of Orissa and Another vs. Sangram Keshari Misra and Another [(2010) 13 SCC 311].
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and the judgements relied by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the position which emerges out is that the correctness of the charges is to be seen in the inquiry and normally a charge-sheet is not quashed prior to conducting of the inquiry on the ground that facts stated in the charge-sheet are erroneous. The charge-sheet is an opportunity to a delinquent employee to submit his explanation/reply for the purposes of coming to the truth in the matter. It is well settled proposition of law that to find out the correctness or truth of the charges is the function of the disciplinary authority and the case of the petitioner does not fall in any such extra ordinary category that the charge-sheet may be quashed.
From the discussions made hereinabove, the petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.8.2022
Nitesh
