Bhupendra Singh Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2629 MP

                                   1

         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    WP-10669-2021
  (BHUPENDRA SINGH PARIHAR VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS)

JABALPUR
DATED : 23.06.2021
      Shri Bhagwan Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for
the respondents/State.

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the issuance of charge sheet as also the order appointing Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and notice to appear in the departmental enquiry.

The brief facts are that the petitioner who was working as District Food Officer was placed under suspension by order dated 27.06.2020 on account of certain irregularity/misconduct alleged against him. The petitioner was served with the charge sheet dated 31.07.2020 and the additional charge sheet dated 28.08.2020. The suspension of the petitioner was revoked by order dated 02.12.2020 and the petitioner stood retired on 31.12.2020. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 08.04.2021 was passed by the Commissioner appointing the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and by impugned notice dated 03.06.2021, the petitioner was directed to appear in the departmental enquiry.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the departmental enquiry has been initiated on the false complaint and that in the suspension revocation order it was mentioned that the proceedings for minor penalty are in progress and subsequently the petitioner has retired, therefore the enquiry cannot continue.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition by submitting that the departmental enquiry was initiated much prior to the petitioner's retirement.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the challenge to the charge sheet can be made on limited grounds and a writ petition against a show cause notice or charge sheet can be entertained in very rare and exceptional circumstances.

The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 has held that :

"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 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."

The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Jagdish Baheti Vs. High Court of M.P. and others reported in 2015 (3) MPLJ 172 has held that mere issuance of charge sheet does not give rise to any cause of action. In the said judgment, the Division Bench has held as under :

"9. The contention of the petitioner needs to be examined in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. In the instant case, as there is no contention or allegation on the part of the petitioner to the effect that the charge- sheet has been issued by an incompetent authority or by an authority which has no jurisdiction to do so and, therefore, no exceptional circumstances exist to ignore the general and ordinary rule of non-

maintainability of the petition against a charge- sheet, mere issuance of which does not give rise to any cause of action as has been held by the Supreme Court in the above cited decisions."

In the present case also, no submission has been made by counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheet has been issued by the incompetent authority or the same has been issued in violation of any statutory provision. Hence, at this stage, the plea of the petitioner that the departmental enquiry has been initiated on false complaint is premature and cannot be accepted. The truthfulness of the charges contained in the charge sheet is subject matter of enquiry in the departmental proceedings.

So far as the contention of counsel for the petitioner based upon the suspension revocation order dated 02.12.2020 is concerned, mere mentioning in that order about minor penalty proceedings will have no effect on the charge sheet which is expressly issued

proposing enquiry under Section 14(3) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The petitioner has retired after the initiation of enquiry by service of charge sheet dated 31.07.2020 and supplementary charge sheet dated 28.08.2020, therefore, in terms of Rule 9 (2)(a), the departmental enquiry is deemed to have continued after his retirement.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of UCO Bank and another Vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2007) 6 SCC 694 but that was a case where the charge sheet was issued much after the superannuation of the employee, hence the said judgment is of no help to the petitioner.

Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of any merit, hence no case for interference is made out.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE DV

Digitally signed by DINESH VERMA Date: 2021.06.25 15:39:46 +05'30'