Kamlesh Gaud vs State Of M.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 85 MP

1                                                                       WP No.2517/2021

          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           WP No.2517/2021
           Kamlesh Goud Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

Indore, Dated:23.02.2021

     Shri. Akshat Pahadia, learned counsel for petitioner.

     Shri Aditya Garg, learned G.A for respondents/State.

Learned counsel for petitioner at the outset fairly submits that this matter is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in WP No.2027/2021. Thus, petitioner deserves same fate.

Shri Aditya Garg, learned G.A. has no objection.

This Court in WP No.2027/2021 opined as under:-

"7. The following allegations are made against the petitioner :-

**1- fcuk ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa dks voxr djk, Lo;a ds inLFkkiuk okys Fkkus ls nhxj Fkkuk c/kkuk {ks= esa tkdj ,uMhih,l dh dk;Zokgh dj lacaf/kr Fkkuk izHkkjh dks lwfpr u dj e/;izns'k iqfyl jsX;qys'ku ds iSjk dza 64 ¼3½ mYya?ku djuk ,oa iSjk dza- 719 ¼d½ esa fu/kkZfjr izko/kkuksa dk ikyu ugha djukA 2- mijksDr lwpuk ij iwNrkN gsrq v{k; xks;y dks lacf/kr Fkkuk c?kkuk ;k inLFkkiuk okys Fkkuk tkon u ys tkrs gq, lq;qDr dCts okys ¼fdjk;s ij½ galk ekyoh; ds edku esa j[k lansgkLin vkpj.k dk izn'kZu dj e/;izns'k iqfyl jsX;qys'ku ds iSjk dza 64 ¼2½ dk mYYka?ku djukA 3- mijksDr ,uMhih,l ,DV esa iwNrkN gsrq v{k; xks;y dks ys tkus ds mijkar v{k; xks;y ds ifjtuks }kjk vigj.k dh vk'kadk ds pyrs Fkkuk uhep dsaV esa ntZ xqebZlku dz- [email protected] ds lanHkZ esa Fkkuk izHkkjh uhep dsaV Jh vt; lkjoku }kjk bl laca/k esa iwNs tkus ij v{k; xks;y ds laca/k esa dksbZ lwpuk ugh nsdj ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa dks xqejkg djus dk iz;kl dj e/;izns'k jsX;qys'ku ds iSjk dz- 64 ¼3½ dks mYya?ku djukA 4- mijksDr ,uMhih, ,DV ds varxZr mfu deys'k xkSM } kjk ntZ nsgkrh ukylh dz- [email protected] /kkjk [email protected] ,uMhih,l ,DV ls Fkkuk c?kkuk esa ntZ vly dk;eh dza [email protected] /kkjk [email protected] ,uMhih,l ,DV esa 09 ?kaVs dk foyac dj lansgkLin vkpj.k dk izn'kZu dj e/;izns'k iqfyl jsX;qys'ku ds iSjk daz 64¼2½ dk mYya?ku djukA 5- bl izdkj mijksDr leLr iqfyldehZ iqjkuh lsok vof/k ds izf'kf{kr vf/[email protected] gksdj iqfyl lsok dh lkekU;

'krksZ ,oa fu;eksa ls Hkyh&Hkkafr ifjfpr gksus ds i'pkr Hkh mijksDrkuqlkj xaHkhj d`R; dj Lo;a dks iqfyl lsok ds vk;ksX; iznf'kZr djukA**

8. This is trite law that interference at the stage of charge-sheet can be made on limited grounds. If allegations mentioned in the charge-sheet are accepted on its face value and and even then, no misconduct is made out, interference can be made. Interference can also be made if charge-sheet is issued belatedly and such delay in issuing the charge-sheet has caused prejudice to the petitioner. The disciplinary authority is unable to assign justifiable reasons for issuing the charge-sheet with inordinate delay. The charge-sheet can also be subject-matter of judicial review if it is issued by incompetent authority. Correctness of allegations cannot be gone into at the stage of issuance of charge-sheet. Charge-sheet is not an order indeed it is only a notice pursuant to which an enquiry can be conducted. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Baheti Vs. High Court of M.P. & Ors. reported in 2015 (3) M.P.L.J. 172 considered various judgments of Supreme Court on the question of judicial review of charge-sheet and opined as under :-

6. Before we consider the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner it would be appropriate to consider the scope and extent of judicial review and interference in charge-sheets permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as specified and laid down by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions. In the case of Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, the Supreme Court 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, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, (2004) 3 SCC 440, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore, (2001) 10 SCC

639, State of U.P v. Brahm Datt Sharma, (1987) 2 SCC 179, 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 lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. 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.

16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."

7. In the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565, the Supreme Court has held that ordinarily a writ petition does not lie against the charge-sheet or a show cause notice as it does not give rise to any cause of action unless the same has been

issued by an authority not competent to initiate departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court has laid down the law in this regard by relying on several previous decisions, in the following terms:- "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. [Vide: State of U.P v. Brahm Datt Sharma, (1987) 2 SCC 179; Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 327; Ulagappa v. Divn. Commr., Mysore, (2001) 10 SCC 639; Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, (2004) 3 SCC 440; and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28].

11. In State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra, (2010) 13 SCC 311, this Court held that normally a charge-sheet 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, (1994) 3 SCC 357].

12. 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 charge- sheet 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."

8. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above quoted decisions, therefore, makes it clear that generally and ordinarily a writ petition is not maintainable against a charge-sheet as issuance of the same does not give rise to a cause of action on account of the fact that it does not adversely effect the rights of a party except in cases where the charge-sheet has been issued by an authority not competent to do so. The Supreme Court has also held that neither disciplinary proceedings nor a charge-sheet can be quashed at the initial stage on merits as it would be a pre-mature stage to deal with the merits of the case. The Supreme Court has also held that at the stage of issuance of charge-sheet the correctness or veracity of the charges cannot be looked into in writ proceedings as that aspect is the domain of the disciplinary authority and not the High Court.

9. The allegations mentioned against the petitioner reproduced herein above if accepted on its face value, this cannot be said that it does constitute misconduct. Thus, necessary ingredients on which interference can be made at this stage on a charge-sheet are absent in this case. So far as judgment of Supreme Court in State of U.P. V. Mohd. Sharif(supra) is concerned, it was a case

where the charge-sheet did not furnish necessary particulars. The interference was made after the enquiry was complete. The petitioner assailed the charge-sheet after receiving the order of punishment. Similarly in the case of Sawai Singh(supra), the interference was made because charges were vague.. Thus, in both the cases, relied upon by the petitioner, the interference was made because the charge-sheet did not contain necessary particulars or in other words, it was vague and ambiguous. This is not the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned charge-sheet is vague.

10. In absence of any ingredients on which interference can be made on the charge-sheet, interference is declined.

11. However, in the interest of justice, in view of Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 388 it is directed that respondents shall conduct the enquiry in accordance with law by affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner."

In view whereof this petition is also dismissed with same observations.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE

vm

Digitally signed by Varghese Mathew Date: 2021.02.23 04:43:36 -08'00'