Md. Abdul Wahab Azad vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 2416 Chatt

                                                    1


                                                                                              NAFR

                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                       WPS No. 2567 of 2022

             Md. Abdul Wahab Azad S/o Shri Sheikh Goush Ali Aged About 40 Years R/o Cb-

             4, A, Camp-1 Steel Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

                                                                                    ---- Petitioner

                                               Versus

          1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Department, New Of

             Home Department, New Delhi.

          2. Director General Cisf, Central Industrial Security Force, Headquarter, 13 Cgo

             Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pin 110003

          3. Deputy Inspector General, Unit Commander Authority, Central Industrial

             Security Force Unit, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh.

          4. Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Bhilai Steel, Bhilai, District

             Durg Chhattisgarh.

                                                                              ---- Respondents

     For Petitioner                             :       Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar with
                                                        Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocates
     For Respondent/s                           :       Mr. Ramakant Mishra, ASG



                               Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                       Order on Board

12/04/2022

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the charge sheet dated

15.12.2021 issued by the respondent no.4 to the petitioner under Rule 36 of the

Central Industrial Security force Regulations, 2001.

2. The primary contention of the petitioner in assailing the impugned charge sheet

is the fact that respondent Authorities have not taken into consideration the

complaint which the petitioner has lodged in the department to the Higher

Authorities along with the representation for the same with repeated reminders.

3. Further contention of the petitioner is that for the same incident the petitioner

has first lodged the complaint before the Police Station at Sakri in respect of the

incident that occurred on 10.11.2021. All these facts according to the petitioner

would clearly reflect that it was not the petitioner who was the person who had

assaulted the authorities at the check post but it was the other way round where

the petitioner was assaulted by the Security Guards and others and for which

the petitioner has already intimated the Higher Authorities in the department

and these facts have not been taken into consideration deliberately by the

Authorities in a premeditated manner and on the other hand have implicated the

petitioner by issuance of charge sheet on false and baseless allegations.

4. Learned ASG on the other hand submits that it is only an issuance of the charge

sheet which is under challenge and that it is by now a well settled proposition of

law that charge sheet and show cause notices are not to be interfered with by

the High Court in exercise of their powers under Article 226 as a matter of

routine.

5. According to the learned ASG since it is only a charge sheet that has been

issued the petitioner would get all the right to respond to the charge sheet by

submitting detailed reply and the Authorities shall duly consider the reply that

petitioner would be submitting to the charge sheet before proceeding further on

the disciplinary front and for all these reasons ASG prayed for rejection of the

petition holding it to be premature at this stage.

6. Plain perusal of the charge sheet and charges levelled in the charge sheet

agianst the petitioner, there seems to be serious allegations made by the

respondents against the petitioner. Now, if the charges as is reflected in the

charge sheet are false and baseless according to the petitioner he would have

to rebut the same by filing the reply to the charge sheet. Thereafter it is for the

Disciplinary Authority to appreciate the contents of the reply and then take an

appropriate decision whether there is a need to conduct disciplinary enquiry or

not? Even if the Disciplinary Authority at that point of time decides to conduct an

enquiry even then it cannot be said to be perse bad in law for the reason that

even then the petitioner would be given reasonable opportunity of defense

along with all relevant materials which the department would rely upon in the

course of proving the charges leveled against the petitioner and petitioner

would get all the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the department

in the enquiry by which he can specifically bring the defense of the petitioner

before the Enquiry Officer.

7. As regards the incident having been recorded in the CCTV footage it would be

left for the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Enquiry

Officer or for that matter before Disciplinary Authority for obtaining a copy of the

same in accordance with the rules. That stage at this level has not arisen. It

would be left open for the petitioner to avail such other remedies available to

him in the course of the departmental enquiry.

8. So far as law on the issue of charge sheet is concerned, a couple of judgments

of the Supreme Court in this regard is reproduced hereinunder:-

"The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr.

[1987 2 SCC 179] dealing with the scope of judicial interference in disciplinary matters was

of the opinion that, "the purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford an opportunity of

hearing to the Government servant and once cause is shown and is open to the

Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the

Government servant, only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken.

Interference by the Court before that stage would be premature and the Hon'ble Supreme

Court went on holding that, the High Court in our opinion ought not have interfere with the

show cause notice."

9. Again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence

& Ors. v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [2012 11 SCC 565] in paragraph 8, 10 & 12

has held as under:-

"8. The law does not permit quashing of charge-sheet in a routine

manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in

respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing a

representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary

authority thereon.

10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or

show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any

cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which

affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by

a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies

when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does

not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order

imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party

is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a

charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings

should not ordinarily be quashed by the court.

12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that

the charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge

as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it

is established that the same has been issued by an authority not

competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the

disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an

initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the

issues."

10. From the aforesaid legal position as it stands it is clear that, the Supreme Court

has been of the view that, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India would interfere with the disciplinary

proceedings only in the event of there been a total lack of competency in the

holding of enquiry proceedings by the enquiry officer or the enquiry proceedings

are barred for any reason or where the charges have been already enquired

upon and has been concluded.

11. The high court of Delhi in the case of Subha Kumar Dash Vs. The University of

Delhi & Ors. has held as under :-

"A charge-sheet which is issued in departmental proceedings cannot be

challenged at the initial stage except on the limited ground of lack of

authority in the person/authority issuing the charge-sheet or such other

fundamental ground. Merits of the matter have to be looked into by the

departmental authorities.

12. The Supreme Court in its recent judgment in the case of Secretary, Ministry of

Defence and Ors. Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha 2012 (11) SCC 565 has

similarly so held by referring to various earlier judgments including the judgment

in the case of Brahm Datt Sharma (supra). Paras 10 to 12 of the said judgment

read as under:-

"10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a chargesheet

or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to

any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order

which affects the right of any party unless the same has been

issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so.

A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact,

chargesheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when

a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely

affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause

of action. Thus, a chargesheet or show cause notice in

disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the

Court

11. In State of Orissa and Anr. v. Sangram Keshari Misra (SCC pp.

315-16, para 10) this Court held that normally a chargesheet is

not quashed prior to the conclusion of the enquiry on the ground

that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason

that correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the

disciplinary authority. (See also Union of India v. Upendra

Singh).

12. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the chargesheet be

quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to

deal with the issues.

13. It is therefore clear that a Court can only interfere with continuation of enquiry

proceedings when there is complete lack of jurisdiction in holding of the enquiry

proceedings by the authority which is holding the enquiry, or because the

authority did not have the power to initiate the enquiry or the enquiry may be

barred by principle of res judicata or double jeopardise or that on the face of the

show cause notice even if facts are accepted as correct no charges are made

out or there is no cause of action or no violation of any law or rules etc etc."

14. Given the aforesaid legal position as it stands, this Court at this juncture is not

inclined to interfere with the issuance of the charge sheet by the department. It

would be left open for the petitioner to appear before the Disciplinary Authority

and submit a reply to the charge sheet.

15. It is made clear that in case if the petitioner has not filed reply till now, the

petitioner would be free to submit his reply within a further period of seven days

starting from today. Disciplinary Authority is expected to take into consideration

entire contents of the reply that petitioner shall be raising in his reply before

deciding the next course of action to be initiated. With the aforesaid

observations, the writ petition would stand disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit