Delhi High Court
S.P.Parasher vs Rehabilitation Council Of India on 12 September, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 541/2012 & CM 1147/2012 (stay)
% 12th September, 2013
S.P.PARASHER ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sherawat, Advocate
VERSUS
REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the Articles of
Charges dated 27.9.2011 and the departmental proceedings initiated in terms
of the order dated 13.1.2012.
2. A reference to Articles of Charges in this case show that there
are five Articles of Charges against the petitioner and all of which contain
factual issues. There are charges against the petitioner of changing existing
entries in the service book. There is also a charge of forging of entry against
the petitioner. All the Article of Charges in some way or the other are
WPC 541/2012 Page 1 of 5
connected to each other because of claim of the petitioner to join his past
services with an erstwhile employer.
3. I have recently in the judgment in the case of Dr. Muhammad
Iqbal Vs. Union of India & Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 4222/2013 decided on
8.7.2013 had an occasion to consider the scope of challenge to Articles of
Charges and departmental proceedings at the outset. The relevant paras of
this judgment read as under:-
"3. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr. (1987) 2 SCC 179
has held the following in para 9 of its judgment:-
"9. The High Court was not justified in quashing the show
cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a
government servant under a statutory provision calling upon
him to show cause, ordinarily the government servant must
place his case before the authority concerned by showing
cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the
notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been
issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose
of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of
hearing to the government servant and once cause is shown
it is open to the government to consider the matter in the
light of the facts and submissions placed by the government
servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter
could be taken. Interference by the court before that stage
would be premature. The High Court in our opinion ought
not have interfered with the show cause notice." (underlining
added)
WPC 541/2012 Page 2 of 5
A reference to the aforesaid para shows that truth or
falsity of the allegations cannot be determined by a Court before
whom enquiry proceedings are challenged at the outset and an
entitlement to challenge the enquiry proceedings arises only when
there is found lack of jurisdiction.
4. 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. (Vide; State
of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, Bihar State Housing
Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Ulagappa and Ors. v.
Div. Commr., Mysore and Ors., Special Director and
Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr. and Union of
India and Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana).
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
WPC 541/2012 Page 3 of 5
charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. (See also
Union of India v. Upendra Singh).
12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the
effect that chargesheet 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." (underlining added)
5. 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."
4. A reading of the writ petition shows that there is no inherent
lack of jurisdiction in the departmental authorities which is pleaded and only
on which basis Articles of Charges can be quashed or departmental
proceedings cannot be held. Since there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction,
WPC 541/2012 Page 4 of 5
issues of merits i.e truth or falsity of the allegations have to be determined in
departmental proceedings and not before this Court.
5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is
accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
