Ramesh Singh Sengar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8939 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 8939 MP
Judgement Date : 17 December, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramesh Singh Sengar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 December, 2021

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                               1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      W.P. No.22116/2021
         Ramesh Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. & Others

Gwalior, Dated : 17-12-2021

      Shri Ravi Ballabh Tripathi, Counsel for petitioner.

      Shri Deepak Khot, Counsel for State.

      This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed seeking following reliefs :

         "i. Summon the entire relevant record from the
              possession of the official Respondents;

ii. Quash and set-aside the impugned chargesheet dated 24 May 2021 (Annexure P/7) along with all consequential measures taken by the Respondents including the appointment of the Enquiry Officer or presenting officer.

iii. In the alternative, after quashing the chargesheet, it is prayed that this honourable Court may direct the Respondent officials to take a call on the Petitioner's representations as well as medical documents submitted by him, in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977, while granting him an opportunity of hearing. iv. Further, the Respondents be directed to grant a personal hearing to the Petitioner so as to enable him to submit all the necessary documents and explain the circumstances pertaining to his absence, before issuing any order having an adverse impact on the Petitioner.

v. In the event, the Respondents are of the view that the Petitioner's absence was bona fide, a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order may be issued by this honourable court, directing the Respondent officials that the aforesaid period of absence, the treated as on duty for all purposes including salary, increment, seniority and other measures.

vi. Any other relief, which this honourable court deems appropriate and just, may also be granted, in the interest of justice.

vii. Award cost of the litigation in favour of the Petitioner.

It is submitted by Counsel for petitioner that the charge-sheet

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.22116/2021 Ramesh Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. & Others

issued against the petitioner is based on incorrect allegations, and

therefore, it must be quashed.

Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by Counsel for

State. It is submitted that the issuance of charge-sheet cannot be said

to be a cause of action. Furthermore, the charge-sheet can be quashed

on the ground of competency and since the competency of authority

has not been challenged by the petitioner, therefore, the petition is

misconceived and petitioner must participate in the departmental

enquiry.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

It is the case of the petitioner that the charge-sheet which has

been issued by the respondents is not based on correct allegations.

Thus, the petitioner has challenged the correctness and veracity of the

charges leveled against him.

This Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India cannot look into the correctness of allegations

leveled against the delinquent officer.

The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another

Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in 2006 (12) SCC 28 has

held as under:

"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show- cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327 : JT

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.22116/2021 Ramesh Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. & Others

(1995) 8 SC 331], Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467], Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore [(2001) 10 SCC 639], State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , etc.

14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge- sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.

15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge- sheet."

The Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and Others Vs.

Ajit Singh, reported in 1997 (11) SCC 368 has held as under :

"3. We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court insofar as the quashing of the order of suspension is concerned. We are, however, of the view that the High Court was in error in setting aside the charge-sheet that was served on the respondent in the disciplinary proceedings. In doing so the High Court has gone into the merits of the allegations on which the charge-sheet was based and even though the charges had yet to be proved by evidence to be adduced in the disciplinary proceedings. The High Court, accepting the explanation offered by the respondent, has proceeded on

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.22116/2021 Ramesh Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. & Others

the basis that there was no merit in the charges levelled against the respondent. We are unable to uphold this approach of the High Court. The allegations are based on documents which would have been produced as evidence to prove the charges in the disciplinary proceedings. Till such evidence was produced it could not be said that the charges contained in the charge-sheet were without any basis whatsoever."