Dr. Brijesh Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13653 MP

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                             ON THE 22 nd OF AUGUST, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 19593 of 2020

                          BETWEEN:-
                          DR. BRIJESH PANDEY, S/O LATE RAJENDRA PRASAD
                          PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          MEDICAL OFFICER, F-4 J.P. HOSPITAL CAMPUS,
                          BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) PIN CODE 462001

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI A.K. DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
                                THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH
                                AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VALLABH
                                BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) PIN
                                CODE 462004

                          2.    THE COMMISSIONER, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH
                                S E R V I C E S , MADHYA PRADESH, SATPUDA
                                BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) PIN
                                CODE 462004

                          3.    THE CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER,
                                SIDHI, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH) PIN
                                CODE 486669

                          4.    THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES,
                                REWA DIVISION, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH) PIN CODE 486001

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI TARUN SENGAR - PANEL LAWYER)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                           ORDER

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 8/25/2023 5:23:37 PM

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.03.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he entered into services of the respondents on the post of Medical Officer on 01.03.2003. The respondent No.3 has assigned the charge of District Program Manager w.e.f.16.04.2010. The petitioner lodged a complaint against M.P. Tiwari, the then Chief Medical and Health Officer for which a case was registered by the Lokayukt and in an enquiry financial irregularities of Rs.72,000/- was reported. The respondent No.2 was directed to hold departmental enquiry against the then Chief Medical

and Health Officer, the petitioner, Accountant and Clerk in addition to the FIR. Later on, the order of FIR was recalled. On 16.03.2016 a charge-sheet was issued by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner. The petitioner made an application dated 11.04.2016 for supply of various documents but that were not supplied to him, therefore, he has preferred a writ petition challenging the charge-sheet and non supply of various documents on the ground that in absence of any documents, which were asked for by the petitioner, he could not submit his reply/defence properly before the authorities. Therefore, the entire proceedings of the issuance of the charge-sheet and subsequent departmental enquiry are unsustainable and has prayed for quashment of the same.

3. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents/State has filed the reply and denied all the averments. It is submitted that all the required documents have been supplied to the petitioner and the same is reflected from Annexure R/4, dated 07.08.2020. There is no counter filed by the petitioner to the

Signature Not Verified aforesaid. Even otherwise, the petition itself is not maintainable against issuance Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 8/25/2023 5:23:37 PM

of the charge-sheet in view of the settled legal proposition of law in a case of Union of India Vs. Kunishetty Satyanarayan reported in (2006) 12 SCC

28. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. The rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to counter the averments of the return, but no specific ground has been taken by the petitioner to show that he has not been supplied the documents as required by him.

5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

6. Apart from the admitted facts, the document Annexure R/4, which is filed by the respondents clearly shows that the documents which were asked by the petitioner has already been supplied. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner way back in the year 2016. There is no interim relief granted to the petitioner. The counsel appearing for the petitioner is unaware of the stage of departmental enquiry. In absence of any specific averment made by the petitioner to show that what prejudice is being caused to him due to non supply of the documents and the fact that how these documents are relevant for submitting his reply to the charge-sheet, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. Even otherwise, in terms of Annexure R/4 desired documents have already been supplied to him. Merely issuance of a show cause notice or a charge-sheet does not give any cause of action to an employee as the same does not amount to any adverse order.

7. The petition against the charge-sheet is not maintainable in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Kunishetty Satyanarayana (supra), wherein the Hon'ble 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 vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 8/25/2023 5:23:37 PM

another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another 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 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 ca n 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."

8. Under these circumstances and looking to the settled proposition of law coupled with the fact that Annexure R/4 filed by the respondents clearly reflect that all the documents is supplied to the petitioner, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.

9. The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE taj

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Signing time: 8/25/2023 5:23:37 PM