Chattisgarh High Court
Jawahar Lal Patel vs The Managing Director, ... on 27 September, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 5900 of 2022
Jawahar Lal Patel S/o Late Shri Motiram Patel Aged About 58 Years Working As
Junior Technical Assistant At Chhattisgarh Civil Supplies Corporation Limited,
District Office, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.), Permanent R/o - Village -
Sakrelikala, Police Station - Sakti, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited
Block - 7, A, 2nd Floor, Office Complex, Sector - 24, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Deputy A.G.M. (Administration) Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited, Block - 7, A, 2nd Floor, Office Complex, Sector - 24, Atal Nagar, Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. The District Manager Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited,
Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
4. The District Manager Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited,
Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. PK Patel, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Syed Majil Ali, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board
27/09/2022
1. By this petition, petitioner has challenged issuance of charge-sheet in
department proceedings initiated against him and sought following reliefs :-
"10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a
writ or writs/order or orders to quash the impugned order dated
26.07.2022, issued by the respondent No.1, (Annexure P-1) in
the interest of justice."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was working as 'Junior
Technical Assistant', posted at District Office, Korba and on 13.01.2022 he was
served with show-cause-notice with respect to accepting of degraded rice which
were found in 54 stakes out of 59 kept in godown of Chhuri Korba. Petitioner
submitted reply before respondent explaining allegations but that was not
considered and he was served with charge-sheet. He further contended that
respondents have also not considered reply to charge-sheet submitted by
petitioner and his proceeding with Departmental enquiry initiated against him. At
that point of time alongwith petitioner one another employee namely Raj Kishore
Joshi was also posted but against him no departmental proceeding was initiated.
The action of respondents is arbitrary and illegal, hence, departmental
proceedings initiated against petitioner be set aside/quashed.
3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that in this writ petition petitioner only
raised a ground that reply submitted by petitioner to show-cause-notice or to the
charge-sheet have not been considered in appropriate manner, and the
proceeding has not been initiated against other employees. He further contended
that, respondents upon getting knowledge of degraded rice stakes in godown
under the supervision of petitioner, issued show-cause-notice to him and called
for reply and upon finding reply to be un-satisfactory, issued charge-sheet to
petitioner. Petitioner was also given opportunity to submit reply to charges levelled
against him. In writ petition, petitioner has not raised any ground of Competency
of the Authority who had initiated the proceedings against him, therefore,
departmental proceedings which is yet to be concluded and arrived at a
conclusion after examination of witnesses, is not required to be interdicted. In
supported of his contention, he places his reliance upon the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, Min of Defence & Ors versus
Prabhash Chandra Mirdha reported in AIR 2012, SC 2250.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.
5. Before this Court, learned counsel for petitioner has only made the factual
submission that reply to show-cause-notice as well as reply to charge-sheet were
not considered in appropriate manner and further action of respondents is
arbitrary in not taking any action against other employee. The jurisdiction of Court
in exercise of the judicial review is to look into whether the procedure prescribed
for initiating the departmental proceedings is followed or not and further the
Competency of Authority who issued charge-sheet against any of the employee.
In this case from the documents annexed alongwith writ petition would show that
show-cause-notice was issued to petitioner to which he also replied, further
charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner which was also replied and
thereafter Inquiry Officer proceeded with the department proceedings. Admittedly,
the Competency of the Authority who issued charge-sheet has not been
questioned.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (supra) has held
thus :-
"11. 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, 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 chargesheet
or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not
ordinarily be quashed by the Court. (Vide : State of U.P. v. Brahm
Datt Sharma, AIR 1987 SC 943; Executive Engineer, Bihar State
Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Ors., (1996) 1 SCC 327;
Ulagappa & Ors. v. Div. Commr., Mysore & Ors., AIR 2000 SC
3603 (2); Special Director & Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & Anr.,
AIR 2004 SC 1467; and Union of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty
Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC 906).
12. In State of Orissa & Anr. v. Sangram Keshari Misra & Anr.,
(2010) 13 SCC 311, 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 & Ors. v. Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC
357).
13. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that
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 chargesheet be quashed at an
initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the
issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds
that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not
be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates
prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged
misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while
quashing the proceedings."
7. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned
counsel for parties, documents available on record, decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (supra), I do not find present to be a fit case
to interfere with the department proceedings initiated against the petitioner at this
stage.
8. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
JUDGE
J/-
